Articles by Herschel Smith

Over at the Counterterrorism blog (linked in this site), you will find that there was concern that the Jihadists recently captured in Canada were targeting Pickering Nuclear Power Plant.

American nuclear reactors have to be designed with an overall negative power coefficient.  According to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, general design criterion 11:

The reactor core and associated coolant systems shall be designed so that in the power operating range the net effect of the prompt inherent nuclear feedback characteristics tends to compensate for a rapid increase in reactivity.

Translation: when an incident happens (let’s say, a loss of reactor coolant), the nuclear design of the reactor must be such that without any assistance or interference from humans, the reactor tends to decrease power and shut itself down.

The CANDU reactors in Canada are not U.S. design nor do they have to meet U.S. Code, but they do have a negative overall power coefficient like U.S. reactors.  Also like U.S. reactors, they have strong containment and reactor building designs, as well as serious, heavily armed security, truck barricades and other impediments to vehicular threats.

The very worst that the Jihadists could cause would be some serious financial damage to the reactor site in terms of peripheral equipment (such as step-up transformers, switchyard equipment, etc.).  They could not get close enough even to damage the reactor building structure, much less to cause a release of radioactivity.  And even if all of this did happen, the reactor shuts down because that is the way it is designed.

Shopping malls, drinking water supplies, bridges, tunnels … these things are soft targets.  A nuclear power plant?  Too hard.  They wouldn’t even get close.  No worries.  Security did its job and the Jihadists were caught.  Around nuclear power plants they always will be.

A good story about making Marines was recently carried in the Parade magazine, and can be found here.  I also cite two books in an earlier post on making Marines: “Making the Corps,” and “Into the Crucible.”  One interesting thing about this story is found in the comments to the story.  One or more comments pertain to how this story has accidentally poor timing given the Haditha incident.

Let me say it as loudly as I can: No, and a thousand times NO!  Look, as the investigation(s) come to a close and whatever legal action is necessary ensues, we will find out the details of what happened.  We do not know now, and so I will not speculate.  In Boot Camp and SOI (School of Infantry) the Marines train killers – killers of the enemy.  They do it with no apologies.  They DO NOT train killers of women and children.  If the worst happens (Marines are found guity of crimes), then those who are found guilty will be punished.  It is not helpful, effective to appease our enemies, effective to appease the anti-war zealots, or honorable for us (brass, military, bloggers and finally the citizens) to engage in self-flagellation or in any way dishonor the Corps over something that a statistically insignificant number of men did (or are alleged to do).  The Marines who were not involved in this should keep their head held high.  This includes almost every member of the USMC.  We should all remember that the honor, dignity and prestige of our Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors are at stake, and act with decorum in the coming days.  The coming days might be trying and difficult.

In the future I will post more on this incident, including a quote from Ernie Pyle on what war does to soldiers (from his famous “This is Your War”).

Bush discussed his “comprehensive immigration”plan with the U.S. Department of Commerce; the speech can be found here.

Bush continues to propagate myths about immigration that are so brazenly and obviously illogical and wrong-headed that it is amazing that he can do it with a straight face.  For instance, one such illogical statement was that illegal immigrants are “beyond the reach and protection of American law.” I’ll tell you what.  Go to China, preach Christianity on the street corner, and upon being arrested and imprisoned by the police, tell them that because you are not a citizen of China, you are “beyond the reach of Chinese law.”  See how this argument fies (no, I am not suggesting that the U.S. become like China – I am using hyperbole to make a point).  There is another argument routinely proffered: any bill that does not include “comprehensive” measures (what Bush defines as comprehensive, such as a guest worker program, eventual amnesty for those who are here now, etc.) is unrealistic and doomed to failure.  Again, I’ll tell you what.  Go and talk to the Chinese and see how easy it is for “enemies of the state” (e.g., Christians) to get out of the country.  See how effective border guards and fences are for the Chinese.  There is absolutely nothing that makes it necessary to have a guest worker program in order to seal our border.  This is a non sequitur.  But the worst possible quote follows:

There’s a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program that requires every illegal immigrant to leave.

Let’s word this a little differently:

There’s a rational middle ground between granting complete immunity from prosecution and freedom for every felon and requiring each and every felon to go to prison.

How does this last paragraph strike you?

Good Lord.  What could be possessing Bush?  Why does he waste what remaining political capital he has left pushing his immigration policy?

Tim Russert (CNBC) recently did a customarily soft-ball interview with Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong about their new book, “Crashing the Gate.”  The interview (and book) made clear the disdain the Markos and the political left (mainly the grass roots activitsts, bloggers, etc.) have for the inside-the-beltway people, even democrats.  In fact, Markos finds distasteful everything other than “outsider credentials.”  What I found so amusing (and ironic) about this interview was what they two of them think of each other.  Russert has ridiculed Kos for thinking that Gore is electable, while Kos has made quite ugly statements about Russert.  Daily Kos has a commentary on Tim Russert that is about as hateful, vulgar and venomous as a commentary can get.  I know, a web site owner may not be responsible for or necessarily even agree with every entry of every blogger on his site, but this commentary is particularly hateful, and as best as I can tell, represents the attitude of most on the far left towards both Tim Russert and Chris Matthews.  They see these two basically as lap dogs for the RNC and the administration.  For what Kos thinks about Russert, see Here, and followup here and here.  There is a little more on Russert here.  Regarding how the liberal blogs and grass roots activists see Russert, see here.  Be careful.  Some of the entries contain profanity, and most of them are very biting and hateful.

But in the interview, Russert seemed disinterested, almost disengaged.  Markos gushed and waxed on about poor Kos … we get no respect or support compared to the conservative bloggers, and so on and so forth (as if Michelle Malkin gets RNC money to blog!).  In a particularly irrelevant moment, he mentioned that you can drive into Chicago and see billboards of Michael Savage.  You are tempted to ask, “so what?”  Russert stared back with rather empty eyes, and I became disengaged in a little while (I am normally a political junkie and it is not like me to disengage).

Here is the question: will the real lackey stand up?  Did Russert not know what the folks at Kos think of him?  If not, since he himself is included in this beltway insider crowd that they have such disdain for, Russert was woefully unprepared for the interview.  If so, why would he grant the interview?  Did Markos know what Kos thinks of Russert?  If not, is Markos not managing the Kos content as well as he needs to?  If so, why would he go to Russert for the interview to begin with?

In hindsight, the interview would have made much more sense had the following brief discussion occurred on camera just prior to the interview.

Russert: I think you’re a buffoon for thinking that Gore can be elected.

Markos: I think you are a worthless lap dog for the RNC and the administration.  You are the very type we talk about in our new book.

Russert: Very well, since I like to be liked by everyone, how’s ’bout an interview on your book.

Markos: Great! I like to have the respect of lap dogs too, and anything I can do to get inside the beltway so that I can criticize those inside the beltway, I’ll do!  I’ll smile a lot, too.

How pathetic.

The Imam for the recently captured terrorist ring in Canada says that they “never spoke of hurting anyone,” and that they were “steadfast, religious people.”

Right.  That’s why you procure three tons of ammonium nitrate … to be peaceful, steadfast and religious.  Perhaps the little Muslim children were going to play with it?

Or just perhaps they were going to blow people up with it?  See story here.

The Imam for the recently captured terrorist ring in Canada says that they “never spoke of hurting anyone,” and that they were “steadfast, religious people.”

Right.  That’s why you procure three tons of ammonium nitrate … to be peaceful, steadfast and religious.  Perhaps the little Muslim children were going to play with it?

Or just perhaps they were going to blow people up with it?  See story here.

1.6 million dollars.  That is how much the U.S. government and five news organizations together have agreed to pay Wen Ho Lee.  The settlement comes in lieu of further court action, possibly all the way to the SCOTUS, to decide if the news organizations are required to relinquish their sources when it was reported that Lee was being investigated for espionage.  See here for story.  In my opinion, while I understand why the payment has been made to Lee, I consider this whole affair to be deplorable.  No … not the treatment of Lee.  Lee was untrue to his covenant with the U.S. government, and got paid big for it.  As a primer to this story, read the indictment of Lee here.  Also see an interesting blog dedicated to Lee and the events surrounding his indictment here.

Let’s cover a little bit of ground about what all of this boils down to, speaking technically.  This is all about the miniturization of nuclear weapons.  China already has nuclear weapons, so the threat is not that they would become a nuclear power.  Lee took secure documentation (source code, input files, etc.) and made it unsecure, taking it off of the premises of LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory).  This information contained weapons dimensions, mechanical firing data (i.e., the manner and speed with which the various parts of the fissile material are rapidly fired towards each other to cause super-criticality, along with the shape of the parts), isotopic mixture, and the source code for all of the computations to simulate the event.

Basically, it contains all of the information that the U.S. engineers, physicists and chemists have worked on for the last five decades to miniturize nuclear weapons.  This is important mainly for the following reason: weapon delivery.  The heavier that a weapon is, the more missile that is required to deliver it to its target.  This effects the range and effectiveness of the weapon and missile taken together.  A miniturized nuclear weapon can be delivered with a smaller missile, thus making the owner capable of reaching longer distances with the weapon than would otherwise be the case.  The corollary is that with a given missile, more effective weapons material can be delivered with miniturized weapons.  The miniturization of weapons also effects nuclear weapons aging (or rather, our response to it).  As the fissile material ages, its isotopic mixture changes due to radioactive decay, reducing its effectiveness compared to initial conditions.  Compensation can be achieved through use of the same fissile material in redesigned weapons, thus avoiding the need to create new fissile material.  Replacing the stockpile is expensive and burdened with political baggage.

Now.  The issue in this case is not (1) did Richardson divulge the information that Lee was being investigated, (2) was Lee mistreated, (3) was the information Lee took from LANL the highest classification or was it later classified that way in order to indict Lee, or finally, (4) was Lee a spy.  The issue here is that he took information that, had it been lost or released, accidentally or intentionally, could have made the world a much more dangerous place, and knowingly and purposely removed it from LANL by bypassing engineered security features.

If China had obtained this information (who knows?), the next steps were easy.  A quick e-mail to the engineers running the enrichment facility to give them new isotopic mixture specifications, another quick e-mail to the fabrication engineers to redesign the mechanics of the weapon, a good Fortran/C++ compiler for the source code, and suddenly, the world becomes a much more dangerous place than before.  This bypassing of the security features at LANL is a breach of signed agreement, unforgivable, deplorable and unpatriotic at the very least, and at the worst, was intentional espionage.

Oh. And by the way, the U.S. has never found one or more of the electronic media that Lee made for “backup” purposes.  And Wen Ho Lee is 1.6 million dollars richer today partially at our expense.

There has been quite a lot of teeth-gnashing over the distribution of anti-terror funds.  While there is much to be critical of regarding the bumbling, inept Department of Homeland Security, those who are criticizing the distribution of funds should think carefully before they speak.  A FNC analyst late p.m. on June 2 (Bernard Kerik, as if he has no “dog in this fight”) criticized funding for Charlotte, N.C., who hasn’t the landmark buildings that NYC does (perhaps Kerik thinks that skyline is the only important thing?).

Well, Bernard should go back to school on this one.  Right as 9/11 was occurring, calls came immediately from NYC to Charlotte to make sure that the banks got the data and information downloads that needed to be sent from the WTC (I know this from personal conversations with a trading floor representative from one of the banks).  Charlotte banks were asked what they could do to help with the NYSE, and the answer was given, “We can run it tomorrow!”

The first and fourth largest banks in the nation are located in Charlotte, controlling some 1.7 trillion dollars in assets.  See here for source.  We all might find much to moan and roll our eyes at with the DHS (such as the unbelievably stupid DPW port deal), but regarding the redistribution of federal funds to cities that are not as well-prepared as NYC, they might have gotten this one right.

Calling Bernard Kerik: Rather than emote and gush on national television, wouldn’t it be better to analyze?  Calling FNC: Why don’t you get better analysts?

Hat tip to Polipundit for the commentary by Gary Bauer in the Washington Times here.  I am not so sanguine as Gary about the alleged conservatism of Hispanics.  The so-called values-based issues (such as abortion) are based on their Catholic tradition.  On the other issues the numbers are far less impressive than values-based issues.  (By the way, I hate the phrase “values-based” or “values-oriented.”  It presses to the conclusion that some issues are not value-based – a notion with which I disagree.  Your value system should inform every decision on every issue.)

However, I do believe that there is a slight to moderate difference between the Hispanics who are here now (and who have been in the U.S. for years) and the ones coming (or who are about to come).  The ones who have been here are at least accustomed to hard work.  The ones who are still in Mexico and other Latin American countries are still in the middle of some of the most strongly entrenched socialism in the world.  And … there is every reason to conclude that they will vote this way upon being granted with citizenship.

Here I wrote about the coming political earthquake due to immigration, both legal and illegal.  Some objections have come up that deserve a little bit of attention.  Some respond that socialist subsidy and give-away programs are a function of our society, rather than the fact that an employer hires immigrant workers or illegal aliens.  Change the laws to undo the socialism rather than the hiring practices.  Some also respond that not only does the employer benefit from reduced wages paid to the low-skill worker; we benefit as well due to lower prices on common food stuffs and other products and services.

[Breath … sigh].  The fact that our society has socialist give-away programs does not justify adding to the rolls of the recipients.  Besides, either way you cut it up, in terms of the productive worth of the unskilled or low-skill worker, America’s economy will not benefit long term from people who are capable of only manual labor (picking crops, mowing lawns, landscaping).  We have denuded our industrial and manufacturing capability in America.  For instance, to get large-scale steel fabrication and welding done, one must go overseas (e.g., Japan, the Rotterdam shipyard, etc.).  If we have only intellectual capital and services to market, we are not helping ourselves by bringing in people who cannot even speak English.

Regarding the second argument, let’s cover this once again … more slowly this time.  The employer is in favor of illegals because it helps his bottom line.  Period.  There isn’t any more to it than that.  The financial advantage he gets from illegals does not all go to reduce the price for goods.  If it did, then the employer would have no advantage in hiring illegals (since we would get all of the benefit), and he wouldn’t do it.  The employer is the primary recipient of the benefit of hiring illegals.  And once again, the costs associated with these illegals (health care, auto insurance, welfare, medicaid, social security, high rates of prison occupancy by hispanics, gang activity, teaching English, etc.) redound to the tax-paying, premium-paying public.  This is corporate welfare on the backs of the middle class, pure and simple.

A friend reminds me of a quote by Frederic Bastiat:

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”—from The Law

Indeed!