I don't want to be able to search Google+. Or Facebook. Possibly Twitter. What I write on Google+ and Facebook (Facebook more than Google+) is mostly trivial. If I write something there that I think is worthy of further distribution, I'll write it here or at Nuclear Diner. So give this up, Google!
This is a longish article, the large middle part of interest mostly to air-power wonks. But the beginning few paragraphs and ending few paragraphs say all you need to know about the role of lobbying in our defense spending.
So who's a terrorist? A thoughtful consideration of the way law enforcement officials use words.
Reeling in a nuclear whopper. Very cool photo for us nuclear remediation nerds.
Update: Just had a Twitter uproar (1/10/2012, 8 o'clockish EST) over this Washington Post article, which started out quoting an anonymous American official as hoping that sanctions will lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime. The article now has a correction right up front; corrections are usually at the bottom. Here's an early reaction to it.
Now I see Twitter speculation that that's what the official said and had to walk it back. Or it could be the reporters; the WaPo folks don't seem quite as eager for war with Iran as the NYT folks do, but both have been extremely careless (I'm being nice) in their writing, implying that Iran definitely intends to produce nuclear weapons or has one already. That's not true, not even close.
So now we can only wait and see what the mullahs think the case might be. Or what they choose as the most beneficial to their situation.
And all this in the middle of the always-intricate dance of setting up another round of negotiations. Thanks a bunch, WaPo!