Having Secured External Budgetary Support, Maldives Plans Sweeping Reforms – Analysis

P. K. Balachandran

Source Link

Of the US$168 million budget for 2025, Indian aid accounts for US$104 million

Backed by substantial foreign budgetary assistance, Maldivian President Dr.Mohamed Muizzu has announced sweeping administrative and judicial reforms.

The Maldivian budget for 2025 is for MVR 2.5 billion (US$ 168 million). MVR 2.3 billion (US$ 149.8 million) is expected to be received from friendly countries with India accounting for US$ 104 million of it.

Backed financially by friendly countries and international institutions and facing no geopolitical tensions, President Muizzu has declared a commitment to rectifying the missteps of previous administrations, a top official said.

“The aim is to restore public trust besides improving the lives of Maldivians across the 1200 island Indian Ocean archipelago,” the official said.

Dr. Muizzu identified several critical areas that had suffered neglect. To restore economic stability, he is mulling stimulants to growth, reduction in unemployment, and encouraging foreign investment. He plans to expand access to essential services, improving hospital infrastructure, and introduce programs aimed at reducing healthcare costs for citizens. “No one should have to choose between financial stability and their health,” the President stated.

Recognizing the importance of education in fostering national development, Dr. Muizzu has proposed increasing the funding for schools, improving teacher training, and enhancing curriculum standards.

India’s Ascending Role for U.S. Economic Security

Richard M. Rossow

Source Link

While U.S. elections are primarily driven by domestic issues, the policy positions taken by the winner are relevant for a wide array of global partners. In the case of India, for example, the United States and India share concerns about overreliance on China as a dominant supplier of manufactured goods. Consequently, Indian firms have been ramping up investments in the United States, actions significant for both countries moving forward. The next U.S. administration should take the time to meet with international partners such as India before staking out policy positions related to domestic industrial and trade policy. Ignoring U.S. partners in the early days could have repercussions when U.S. officials engage on vital global issues later.

A deeper economic relationship with India is in the United States’ interests for several reasons. First, India is expected to continue growing faster than any other large nation in the foreseeable future, with growth expected to top 7 percent in 2024. BlackRock recently predicted that India will leap over Japan and Germany to become the world’s third-largest economy in just three years. In 2023, Goldman Sachs predicted that the Indian economy will be the world’s second-largest by 2075, at an estimated $52.5 trillion. For U.S. companies looking to grow, India’s topline numbers draw attention—even if the practicalities of doing business in India remain challenging at times.

The Tamil Tigers Were Completely Crushed. Is Hamas Next? - Analysis

Ajai Sahni

Source Link

The trajectory of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka—widely known as the Tamil Tigers—is often cited by proponents of Israel’s stated war aim of entirely eliminating Hamas from Gaza. The Tamil Tigers were one of the most effective and brutal terrorist formations in the world, responsible for the murder of a sitting Sri Lankan president, a former Indian prime minister on Indian soil, and an unending array of prominent Sri Lankans. Eventually, a decimating war waged by the Sri Lankan state between 2006 and 2009—known as the Eelam IV war—resulted in the LTTE’s comprehensive defeat.

But the Tamil precedent is much more ambivalent than the most common references suggest. The precedent indicates that the survival of Hamas will largely be determined by two factors that are themselves still undetermined, and which may operate in tension with one another.

Erosion Of Women’s Rights And Gender Equality In Afghanistan: Impact Of Taliban Governance Since 2021- Analysis

Abdul Wasi Popalzay, Sofia Aslam and Sakshi Sharma

Source Link

I. Introduction

The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan in August 2021 brought about a significant regression in women’s rights and gender equality, dismantling two decades of progress made in education, employment, and public life. Afghanistan, once on a path toward greater gender inclusivity, saw its social and political landscape shift dramatically as the Taliban imposed a strict interpretation of Islamic law. Human Rights Watch (2021) reported that girls were barred from secondary education, and women were excluded from most public sector jobs.

Prior to the Taliban’s return, around 3.5 million girls were enrolled in schools, and women made up 28% of Afghanistan’s parliament, showcasing the advancements achieved by 2020 (World Bank, 2020). These gains, however, were quickly reversed under the Taliban’s regime, which has enforced policies of exclusion and repression, resulting in what scholars like Kandiyoti (2022) describe as “gender apartheid.”

The denial of women’s rights not only affects their personal freedoms but also threatens Afghanistan’s socio-economic stability. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) projected that Afghanistan’s GDP could shrink by 20% within the first year of Taliban rule, with women disproportionately impacted by their exclusion from the workforce (UNDP, 2021). This erosion of rights raises important research questions: what are the specific impacts of Taliban governance on women’s rights and gender equality, and how do these restrictions affect Afghanistan’s broader socio-economic fabric? Addressing these questions is crucial for understanding the intersection between governance, gender oppression, and human rights under Taliban rule. The international community has condemned the Taliban’s actions, yet global responses have often been inconsistent due to geopolitical interests (Human Rights Watch, 2022).

Xi Jinping’s Axis of Losers

Stephen Hadley

Source Link

The United States is contending with the most challenging international environment it has faced since at least the Cold War and perhaps since World War II. One of the most disconcerting features of this environment is the burgeoning cooperation among China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Some policymakers and commentators see in this cooperation the beginnings of a twenty-first-century axis, one that, like the German-Italian-Japanese axis of the twentieth century, will plunge the world into a global war. Others foresee not World War III but a slew of separate conflicts scattered around the globe. Either way, the result is a world at war—the situation is that serious.

What should be done about this cooperation is another matter. Some strategists argue for ruthless prioritization, focusing on the members of the axis that represent the greatest threats. Others believe that only a comprehensive effort will succeed. But the best strategy would borrow elements of both approaches, acknowledging that China is the primary long-term concern for U.S. national security strategy—“the pacing threat,” in the U.S. Defense Department’s framing—but also a different kind of global actor than its rogue-state partners. Accordingly, Washington’s aim should be to make clear to Chinese President Xi Jinping how counterproductive and costly to Beijing’s interests these new relationships will turn out to be. That means effectively countering Iran, North Korea, and Russia in their own regions, thereby demonstrating to China that tethering itself to a bunch of losers is hardly a path to global influence.

Understanding the Middle Corridor

Axel de Vernou

Source Link

On October 21, Bahnoperator Austria and KTZ Express, a subsidiary of Kazakhstan Railways, signed a memorandum outlining their intention to regularly ship cargo to one another through the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), also known as the Middle Corridor. This is the latest development in the vertiginous growth of the TITR, already circumventing trade via Russia and laying the groundwork for further cooperation between the West and Central Asia.

Goods originating in China that flow through the TITR can expect to traverse Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, where they then either branch off to Turkiye or travel across the Black Sea, finishing in Bulgaria, Romania, or Ukraine. From Turkiye, these goods can be expedited to the Mediterranean, and from Ukraine, they can move forward to Poland. Conspicuously absent from this arrangement is Russia, which remains the bastion of the Northern Corridor.

As Rovshan Rustamov, Chairman of Azerbaijan Railways CJSC, pointed out in an interview last month, significant shifts are taking place in global logistics markets. Persistent sanctions from the Ukraine War have dissuaded companies from trading with Russia. Accordingly, the TITR saw an incredible 70 percent surge in freight volumes from January to September 2024.

Countries adjacent to the corridor have demonstrated interest in increasing their involvement. For instance, Turkmenistan and the European Union (EU) launched a Coordination Platform to integrate Central Asian countries into the TITR further and advance the infrastructure projects that make the corridor possible in the first place. Indeed, congestion points, especially in Kazakhstan, have produced undesirable border wait times that may push companies to look for alternative routes.

America’s “One Somalia” Policy is a Gift to China

Michael Rubin 

Source Link

On December 13, 2018, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced the Trump administration’s new Africa strategy. “Great power competitors, namely China and Russia, are rapidly expanding their financial and political influence across Africa,” he said, adding, “China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands.” He cited Djibouti, whose debt to China was nearly half the country’s gross domestic product, and noted that after China inaugurated its first overseas naval base in Djibouti, it began blinding U.S. pilots landing nearby with lasers.

While President Joe Biden sought to define his administration in opposition to Donald Trump, he accepted the Trump team’s concern about China in Africa. “The People’s Republic of China…sees the region as an important arena to challenge the rules-based international order, advance its own narrow commercial and geopolitical interests, undermine transparency and openness, and weaken U.S. relations with African peoples and governments,” Biden’s own Africa strategy declared, even as the Biden team chose to emphasize global problems like climate change and global health.

It is easy to voice an agenda and policy priorities; it is harder to implement them. Absent continuous effort from the National Security Council, institutional inertia triumphs, and individual biases overshadow the national interest. This has been the case with the Horn of Africa, where shortsighted agendas and ham-handed implementation have empowered China at the expense of U.S. national interests, counterterrorism, and democracy.

How Does This End? The Future of the U.S.-China Competition

Hal Brands, Jude Blanchette & Lily McElwee

Source Link

This new report explores whether the United States should more clearly define the end goals for its China policy. While some argue that the United States should aim to “win” in the strategic competition against China, others advocate for a managed competition, avoiding conflict while strengthening the global rules-based order. This report advances the debate with contributions from over 20 leading experts on China and grand strategy, aiming to deepen discussion on how the United States should navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.

Capture the (red) flag: An inside look into China’s hacking contest ecosystem

Dakota Cary and Eugenio Benincasa

Source Link

Introduction

Boxers do not train by reading books. Instead of in a library, they are found floating around the ring, throwing punches into bags, dodging their coach’s padded hands, and repeating their moves for hundreds of hours—all for a fight that lasts up to thirty-six minutes. Training in the ring is crucial for a fighter.

That same exposure to hands-on practice, in addition to classroom learning, is critical for cyber operators. While a degree from a prestigious institution can help someone land an interview at a tech company, companies screen candidates via coding interviews to check for actual, demonstrable capabilities. In cybersecurity, hacking competitions often serve this same role—letting students and experts prove their abilities in a safe, legal environment.

China has built the world’s most comprehensive ecosystem for CTF competitions. Hacking competitions build community, showcase talent, stimulate innovation, and allow participants to get hands-on experience.

New Vehicles, Face Paint and a 1,200-Foot Fall: The U.S. Army Prepares for War With China

Helene Cooper

Source Link

Early one morning this month, 864 Army paratroopers bundled into C-17 transport planes at a base in Alaska and took off for a Great Power War exercise between three volcanic mountains on Hawaii’s Big Island.

Only 492 made it. Some of the C-17s had trouble with their doors, while others were forced to land early. A few of the parachutists who did make it sprained ankles or suffered head trauma. And one — a 19-year-old private — began to fall quickly when his chute did not open.

Across the field, shouts of “pull your reserve” could be heard before the young private hit the ground and medics ran to treat him. The horrifying scene and its aftermath encapsulate every jumper’s worst nightmare.

But Pvt. Second Class Erik Partida’s 1,200-foot fall was also a stark reality check as the U.S. Army transforms itself, and its hundreds of thousands of young men and women, for yet another war, this one a potential conflict with China.

Can Turkey Join BRICS Despite India? – OpEd

Dr. Nejat Tamzok

Source Link

Last week, at the BRICS Summit hosted by the Russian Federation, a bombshell report hit the media: Türkiye’s membership in the group was blocked by India due to Ankara’s close relations with Pakistan.

The claim was based on an interview with former Turkish diplomat Sinan Ülgen published in the German newspaper Bild. According to the article titled “Erdoğan’s BRICS dream shattered,” (1) India had voted against Türkiye, and since decisions in BRICS are taken unanimously, Türkiye’s membership bid had failed.

Later, the relevant individual stated that his comments had been misreported, clarifying that there had been no vote on Türkiye’s membership at the summit. (2)

India had not vetoed Türkiye’s BRICS membership. In fact, there was no vote; the decision was taken to wait as no consensus could be reached among BRICS members on expansion.

Nonetheless, it might be worth remembering the saying, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

True, there was no vote and therefore India did not vote against Türkiye, but the statements made by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the summit were demoralizing enough for Türkiye and of course Pakistan as well.

Modi stated that they were ready to accept the new countries as “partner countries” rather than “member countries” in BRICS, and he particularly emphasized that decisions on this matter should be taken unanimously by the group members and with due respect to the views of the founding members. (3)

Considering that India, alongside Russia, China, and Brazil, is one of the four founding countries of BRICS, Modi was essentially reminding everyone that no new members could join the group without New Delhi’s approval. Thus, it is not difficult to predict that India will not easily allow Türkiye, with whom it has had serious issues in recent years, to join.

The Post-Sinwar Scenario – OpEd

Neville Teller

Source Link

On October 21 two Hamas sources revealed to the media that the idea of appointing a leader to succeed Yahyar Sinwar, assassinated on October 16, had been ruled out, at least for the present. The Hamas leadership, operating at arm’s length from Gaza in the gulf state of Qatar, had decided that the organization would be run, at least until March 2025, by the 5-man committee set up in August after the assassination of political leader Ismail Haniyeh.

The committee, based in Doha, Qatar’s capital city, is comprised of Khalil al-Hayya, Khaled Mashaal, Zaher Jabareen, Mohammed Darwish and the political bureau’s secretary, whose identity remains anonymous for security reasons.

The internal dynamic of the Hamas organization had certainly been severely shaken, yet an informed source, well acquainted with its inner workings, struck an interesting note. Interviewed by the Associated Press, Sadeq Abu Amer, head of the Turkey-based think tank Palestinian Dialogue Group, believed that the removal of Sinwar, whom he dubbed “one of the most prominent hawks within the movement,” was likely to lead to “the advancement of a trend or direction that can be described as dove[-like]”. He indicated that with Sinwar out of the picture a hostage-prisoner exchange deal had become practical politics.

Abu Amer was quick to discount any suggestion that Sinwar’s brother, Mohammed, if he is still alive, could replace him as overall leader of Hamas. “Mohammed Sinwar is the head of the field battle,” he said, “but he will not be Sinwar’s heir as head of the political bureau.”

Although somewhat off the mark, as it has turned out, he believed that Hamas’s Qatar-based political leaders might decide to elect one of their number to head the organization. He identified the two front runners as al-Hayya and Khaled Mashaal.

Navigating Crisis: Why the US Is Fuelling Global Violence

Selçuk Aydın

Source Link

The Middle East had entered a relatively peaceful phase after the Arab Spring with the Eastern Mediterranean mediation (1) among Türkiye, Egypt, Israel and improved Saudi-Iranian normalisation facilitated by Chinese diplomacy, and Abraham Accords, (2) identified as Arab-Israel normalisation, strategically located at the IMEC (India Middle East Corridor) in global trade route, and at the expense of the Palestinian cause. This fragile stability was shattered on 7 October 2023, with a resurgence of violence at unprecedented levels. When the world turned its eyes to the United States, the power capable of preventing this escalation, the "world’s hegemon power" responded to the crisis dismally, in a way that eradicated all values and principles of humanity.

Historically an ideological power, the US has actively positioned herself to represent the liberal values and ideology in world politics, striving to advance human rights and democracy through global interventions. This was conceptualised as the "end of history" (3), promoting the American Dream globally after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, it has become apparent that this is not the case. Today, US foreign policy demonstrates that might makes right, revealing nothing more than a ruthless power struggle and using force in the international arena driven by the US. The only ideological stance of the US being addressed today, especially in relation to Christian Zionism, is Evangelical influence, and capitalist economic and defence industry interest groups.

US-made jam-resistant drones helped Ukrainians cut through Russia EW

PATRICK TUCKER

Source Link

When Russian jamming neutered the recon drones flown by a group of Ukrainian special operators near Dnipro in August, they turned to a new solution: V-BAT drones built to withstand the massive electronic interference used by both sides in the war in Ukraine.

“They launched from about 40 kilometers from the front, flew 100 kilometers past the front line of troops and then found these SA-11 surface-to-air missiles [on] 11 Buks, targeted them, called in HIMARS airburst rounds,” said Brandon Tseng, president and co-founder of Shield AI, the San Diego-based maker of the V-BATs.

That destroyed the SAMs—and, Tseng said, marked a big operational test for the V-BATs: flying, collecting targeting data, and relaying it to artillery units, all in the face of the most sophisticated electronic warfare tactics on earth.

Ukraine has some drones that can perform well against EW, but they work through autonomy and on-platform computing, good for one-way attack missions with whatever munitions can be squeezed onboard. But the ability to pass data quickly back to a fires solution with real power, like a howitzer or Lockheed Martin HIMARS, is essential to taking out Russian positions. This is what the V-BAT supplied to the Ukrainians, according to Tseng, who witnessed the operation first-hand.

The 300-mile range of the V-BAT, even in the face of anti-aircraft defenses, gave the Ukrainians a new view of the battlefield.

“They were able to collect intelligence that they had never collected before was because they had a long-endurance aircraft that was able to watch things for long periods of time,” Tseng said in a Thursday interview. “That absolutely blew their minds, because, while they had some aircraft, some weapon systems that could go 60 kilometers, maybe 100 kilometers, the on-station time was like, for those aircraft for like, 10,15, minutes. So when you're comparing it against us who's loitering around for eight, 9,10, 11 hours, you know, after we get on-station…you just actually have the time space to actually find lots and lots of targets.”

Sustainable Development Goals: Where The UN Pact For The Future May Fall Short – OpEd

Kaitlyn Waring

Source Link

This past September, world leaders gathered in New York at the UN Summit of the Future. The purpose of the summit was to create new and strengthen existing consensus on how to deliver some of the world’s most pressing present and future goals. These priorities are intended to be achieved through the Pact for the Future, an intergovernmental negotiated and action-oriented agreement focused on issues of sustainable development and financing, international peace, innovation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance.

The 66-page document outlines a number of action items within these key areas to achieve the ambitious goals agreed upon by the parties of the conference. While the document offers a comprehensive framework for the end goals that the world needs to see, equal focus needs to be placed on the specific steps and processes required to achieve these end goals.

In general, the action items detailed in the document, from poverty alleviation to ending hunger to addressing climate change, use broad, overarching language that leaves unanswered the question of how to achieve true lasting progress. The widely recognized Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by UN members in 2015, similarly offer pillars of development achievement without any steps to achieve them or indicators to measure their success.

Of course, given the incredible diversity of situations and needs across the globe, specific action plans will be similarly diverse for individual countries, regions, and even communities. But, a common factor that unites all contexts is the need for participatory and decentralized approaches to development that enable people on all levels to take control of their own futures in a sustainable manner.

Robert Reich: What Bezos And Musk Really Want From Trump – OpEd

Robert Reich

Source Link

Elon Musk (worth $271 billion) and Jeff Bezos (worth $262 billion) — the richest and second-richest people on the planet — are now showing America why it’s dangerous to have great wealth concentrated in so few hands.

In August 2013, Bezos purchased The Washington Post for $250 million. On Friday, just as the Post was preparing to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president, Bezos stopped the paper from doing so.

Partly as a result, the Post has already lost 250,000 subscribers, or 10 percent of its subscriber base.

In October 2022, Elon Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billon, turned it into X, and became its biggest user, with 202 million followers.

Musk has endorsed Trump — and weaponized the platform into a supporter of Trump, smeared Harris, and amplified rumors and conspiracy theories.

Independent analysts such as Edison Research said in March that X’s usage in the United States dropped 30 percent since last year. Fidelity this month estimated that X’s value has plunged by about 80 percent since Musk’s takeover.

Why have these two oligarchs been willing to take actions that cause so many of their customers to jump ship? What’s the connection between Bezos’s preventing the Post from endorsing Harris and Musk’s weaponizing X for Trump?

Here’s a hint:

Donald Trump Is Wrong. Hitler’s Generals Were Failures

Michael Peck

Source Link

For someone who considers himself a winner in business and politics, Donald Trump’s admiration for Hitler’s generals is peculiar. Why admire soldiers who lost the biggest war in history?

“I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump reportedly said during his final days in the White House, according to The Atlantic. “People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.” To Trump, such loyalty would include a willingness – or perhaps an eagerness – by the U.S. military to use force against what Trump terms “the enemy from within.”

America’s generals opposed then-President Trump’s threat to deploy troops in American cities during the George Floyd protests in 2020, and they would certainly oppose such a move now. Perhaps that’s why Trump has called those who serve in the U.S. military “losers.”

Donald Trump and History

But the real losers were Hitler’s generals. Not only was the Third Reich ultimately defeated on the battlefield, but Germany was devastated, occupied by foreign armies, and even divided into two nations that would not be reunited for 45 years.

To call Hitler’s generals unconditionally obedient is false. In 1944, a few German officers nearly succeeded in assassinating Hitler. Privately, senior German generals – many of whom were Prussian aristocrats – sneered at Hitler, a World War I veteran of humble Austrian origin whom they dismissed as the “Bohemian corporal.” Given Trump’s contempt for the military, such as dismissing dead American soldiers as “suckers,” they probably wouldn’t have thought much of him, either.

US Policy Toward the Indo-Pacific through 2030: Continuity, Consequences, and Change

Toby Dalton and Anna Bartoux

Source Link

Whether 2025 marks the beginning of a first Harris administration or a second term for former President Trump, it is almost assured that the United States (US) government will pursue geopolitical competition with China through an “Indo-Pacific Strategy.” Although the tone has varied across the last three US administrations, a shared underlying characterization of interests and associated principles have driven a significant degree of continuity in American foreign policy toward the Indo-Pacific. Behind this continuity, there is a mainstream assumption that sustaining these policies—whether they are fully implemented or not—preserves the status quo in the region, despite the significant geopolitical and geoeconomic changes underway.

The logic driving the Indo-Pacific focus is understandable given the mounting threats in the region. And busy government officials can be forgiven for leaning on policies and programs that are well-established and seemingly uncontroversial, versus asking politically difficult (and perhaps career-risking) questions about the wisdom of sustaining the default approach. Nevertheless, an US Indo-Pacific strategy on autopilot seems increasingly blind to the consequences of continuity, namely the ways in which it is exacerbating dangers of crisis or conflict. The next US administration likely will feel constrained in its choices, but it should carefully assess the efficacy of the existing approach and the challenges to its implementation and consider more seriously policy alternatives that could arrest the slide toward insecurity in the region.

Winning Modern Wars through Adaptation

Mick Ryan

Source Link

The ultimate test of military preparation and effectiveness does not end once a war begins. On the contrary, history strongly reflects the enduring phenomena of learning and implementing change during war as well…The requirement that a force must adapt while it is in combat is built into the inherent nature of war. Frank Hoffman, Mars Adapting: Military Change During War.

Throughout the war in Ukraine, the most important capability that Ukraine and Russia have employed and honed has been their ability to learn and adapt. This is an interactive fight because each side is learning based on the reactions of their adversary, and then finding and implementing solutions to improve their effectiveness against that enemy.

This process, which I have described as The Adaptation Battle, occurs at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. At its best, learning and adaptation takes evidence-based observations from the battlefield, shares them with the right analytical agencies, ensures the resulting lessons are then integrated into evolved training, doctrine, organisations, infrastructure, logistics and leadership models.

In many cases, adaptation is local or shared within a small community. And, in some cases, learning and adaptation does not improve the overall effectiveness of a military institution because the context or the situation has changed. There have been examples of all three approaches, from both Ukraine and Russia, since the large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. But adaptation also occurs at multiple levels within military institutions, it occurs before and during wars, and it also takes place in corporate entites who have links to, or interests in, military organisations. Finally, adaptation takes place within enemy organisations as well as within allies.

Cyber Threat to US Critical Infrastructure: Dangers in ‘Weakest Links’

Source Link

As the cyber threat environment grows more complex and daunting by the day, the U.S. intelligence community is racing to bolster cybersecurity defenses at the government level, while also working with local officials to safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure – its water systems, electric grids, communications networks and more. The latter effort may be the harder part, given that experts say many U.S. infrastructure entities have dangerously thin cyber defenses. And all too often, the security of these systems is only as strong as their weakest, most permeable links.

The latest major episode involved the breach of top telecommunications companies by Chinese hackers, which U.S. officials believe was aimed at accessing national security information. Officials said earlier this month that a group of hackers known as Salt Typhoon, allegedly linked to Chinese intelligence, had penetrated the networks of AT&T, Verizon, and Lumen Technologies — three of the largest U.S. internet service providers. Investigators believe the hackers were targeting wiretap warrant requests for federal surveillance information.

Recent Hurricanes and Geoengineering

Emmi Yonekura

Source Link

The recent back-to-back hurricanes that made landfall in the United States—Hurricane Helene on September 26 and Hurricane Milton on October 9—have sparked conspiracy theories about the government creating these disasters through geoengineering.

While such theories are false, they have drawn attention to the risky idea of geoengineering, which typically refers to the large-scale, intentional manipulation of the earth's processes to modify weather.

While both hurricanes wrought enormous damage in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, there is no evidence that points toward any government, or other entity, being involved in their creation.

The spread of misinformation about government involvement in disasters has become something of a trend lately. False allegations about its hurricane response efforts prompted the Federal Emergency Management Agency to create a Hurricane Rumor Response web page this month.

What Does Elon Musk Want? SpaceX CEO May Pose a Risk to National Security

Douglas Yeung

Source Link

SpaceX's impressive launch capabilities—demonstrated most recently by its Falcon 9 rocket, Europa Clipper, and recovery of the Starship rocket booster—have become integral to supporting key objectives of the U.S. military.

The Pentagon hopes that Starshield satellites launched by SpaceX could drastically improve connectivity in remote environments. Networked satellites from Starlink—a SpaceX subsidiary—could help the military spot targets anywhere in the world. Falcon rockets have launched multiple U.S. Space Force missions.

But SpaceX's growing ambitions and successes supplying both the U.S. military and intelligence agencies raise a vital question about SpaceX and its CEO: Does mercurial leadership in a company so integral to America's interests present a national security risk?

What Elon Musk Wants: From the Pentagon to the 2024 Election

Under Elon Musk, SpaceX has taken unpredictable actions that could impact geopolitical events, raising national security concerns that a key defense contractor could be manipulated by the impulses of its leadership.

Who tells satellites where to take pictures? Increasingly, it’ll be robots, Maxar says

LAUREN C. WILLIAMS

Source Link

Maxar’s chief product officer Peter Wilczynski, who joined the space-imagery company over the summer, is spearheading an effort to build navigation systems that use 3D maps instead of GPS. But the Palantir alum is also working to develop systems to better manage the ever-growing queues for his company’s orbital-imagery services. He foresees automated tools that track changes captured by relatively low-resolution imagery to cue passes by Maxar's higher-resolution satellites.

This interview has been edited for length.

D1: What are some areas you want to explore, especially as the Defense Department looks to bring more commercial space companies into the fold?

Wilczynski: Our historical strength is really in foundational mapping. When we think about more operational missions, I think a lot about how we can…cut down the latency of our space-to-ground and ground-to-space communication. And as one of the only owner-operator-builder [satellite] companies in the world [that] actually designs, launches, and then owns and operates the satellite constellation, we have a lot of potential for integrating across the space and ground segments to really cut down the latency. And so that's a big focus for us.

So, for example, if you’re monitoring ships in the South China Sea, you’re trying to reduce the time needed to process and analyze that data?

I think that's exactly right. And, you know, I also think a lot about not just looking at the proximate analytic targets, so like a vessel that's moving, but actually, can you look backwards in the chain of events that would cause the vessel to move? So modeling site networks and understanding sort of how activity at one site could correlate with future activity at another site.

AI’s New Frontier in War Planning: How AI Agents Can Revolutionize Military Decision-Making

Richard Farnell & Kira Coffey

Source Link

Throughout history, rapid changes in the geopolitical and military environment impacted decision-makers’ ability to accomplish strategic or operational objectives. Being too slow to adapt to changing conditions can be catastrophic in a dynamic environment. History is rife with accounts of militaries paying steep prices in lost lives, battles, and even wars due to their failure to adapt.[1] The United States’ national security depends on planners’ ability to account for this dynamism and expeditiously identify gaps, exploit opportunities, and keep pace to stay competitive in modern warfare.

The Department of Defense should aggressively begin experimenting with Agentic AI tools (a category of AI that can work through a series of tasks on its own to achieve an assigned, complex objective[2]) in its Joint Operational Planning Process (JOPP) for two important reasons. First, Agentic AI has the potential to more quickly and comprehensively synthesize a broad scope of traditional and non-traditional planning factors than humans alone to help produce more thorough, objective courses of action (COA). Second, once a COA is selected, Agentic AI also has the potential to help rapidly publish downstream directives and orders, flattening communication and saving hundreds of man-hours in each planning cycle.

Code Talkers Helped US Win World Wars I And II

David Vergun

Source Link

When the topic of military code talkers comes up, many think of the Navajo code talkers of World War II who operated as Marines in the Pacific Theater. This association was bolstered following the 2002 release of the film “Windtalkers,” starring Nicholas Cage.

While the Navajo Nation contributed immensely to the war effort, other Native American tribes also had their own code talkers who served in both world wars.

Code talkers were useful because their languages weren’t understood by enemy forces and the code talkers could transmit secret messages to and from the battlefield without being deciphered.

World War I code talkers included the Choctaw, Cherokee, Comanche, Osage, Lakota and Cheyenne Nations.

Army Pfc. Joseph Oklahombi, a Choctaw code talker, earned a Silver Star Medal, one of the highest awards for valor. On Oct. 8, 1918, at Saint-Etienne, France, his 36th Infantry Division unit came under attack.

Oklahombi and others in his company captured 171 Germans and killed about 79 more. He was also awarded the Croix de Guerre by France. It’s the French equivalent of the U.S. Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor.

During World War II, code talkers from the Comanche, Lakota, Muscogee, Mohawk, Meskwaki, Tlingit, Hopi, Cree, Crow and Choctaw Nations were among those who served in the European Theater with the Army, while Navajo code talkers served in the Pacific Theater with the Marine Corps.

Native Americans had to get creative with military terms that were not native to their language. For instance, the Navajo language didn’t have a word for submarine, so they used the term iron fish in World War II.

Also in World War II, the Navajo used their word for shark to denote a destroyer and they used buzzard for bomber.