Ehud Barak's New Report

On Thursday, Ehud Barak claimed that

“apparently a report by American intelligence agencies - I don't know if it's under the title NIE or under another title - which is making the rounds of high offices," in Washington that makes the American government's concerns more urgent.

"As far as we know, it comes very close to our own estimate, I would say, as opposed to earlier American estimates. It transforms the Iranian situation to an even more urgent one and it is even less likely that we will know every development in time on the Iranian nuclear program."

By evening Washington time, US government officials were saying that nothing in their estimate had changed:

The United States still believes that Iran is not on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and that Tehran has not made a decision to pursue one, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

On Saturday, Barak repeated himself. It’s pretty obvious to me, Jeffrey Goldberg, and Richard Silverstein who the senior Jerusalem official is. From Barak Ravid in Haaretz:

As the dispute between Israel and the Obama administration over how to address the Iranian nuclear threat rages, a senior Jerusalem official has said Iran has made significant progress in assembling a nuclear warhead.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous, said new intelligence obtained by the United States, Israel and other Western countries shows that the Iranian activity around the "weapon group" - the final stage in the development of a nuclear weapon - is progressing far beyond the scope known to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The new intelligence was introduced as a last-minute update to the special National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program that was submitted to U.S. President Barack Obama a week ago.

Is there a report?

The existence of a report is at the center of Barak’s claim. The US statement mentions nothing about a report. Barak said on Thursday that it may be a National Intelligence Estimate, then elaborated it to an update to a recent special NIE. David Albright notes that information about the last NIE on Iran was held closely. If there is an NIE in progress, what would constitute intelligence introduced as a last-minute update? Many things, obviously, but a possibility that Barak would know about would be a contribution from Israeli intelligence.

The US response would probably be the same whether or not there is a change in the available intelligence and whether or not a new NIE on Iran is in progress. A change in the assessment would be made public only when the government felt the time was right. That calculation would include both its effect on the negotiations and any decision for war.

Given the extensive analysis that underlies the conclusions of an NIE, it’s unlikely that a single contribution would turn an analysis around. That single contribution would have to show something like an assembly plant for nuclear weapons. Even a confirmation that nuclear-weapons-related testing was done at Parchin would only tilt the conclusions of the 2011 NIE toward a greater probability that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and that would not justify war by US criteria.

Barak’s claims are completely unspecific as to what the intelligence is. If he is going to release another country’s classified information, which is the case if indeed another NIE is in progress and he knows something about it, then he might as well go all the way if he has damning evidence and tell us what it is.

Is there any report at all? The US officials don’t mention one, and no reporter seems to have picked up the possibility of a new NIE being developed. Sadly, bluffs from Israeli officials are not unknown with respect to Iran. They have been saying for at least a decade that Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and that they must attack. Is this an attempt to force out a report that Barack believes exists? Or an attempt to put a justification for the attack he’d like to make into people’s minds?

What is Barak’s motive?

It’s bad form to leak an ally’s intelligence. It’s also bad form to make up stuff about an ally’s intelligence. Either one is likely to irritate said ally, and it’s hard to believe that Israel’s various actions since Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the United States in the spring hasn’t done some of that anyway. Ottomans and Zionists reminds us that not too long ago, the American intelligence community identified Israel as its number one counterintelligence threat.

During the spring visit, President Obama said that he “had his back” and that he “doesn’t bluff.” Many took this to mean that America would attack Iran at some point or help Israel in that enterprise. But look at Obama’s words carefully. They can be interpreted to mean an attack, and they certainly lean in that direction. But he does not speak of an attack. He also warns Israel against “a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim.”

What if Obama promised Netanyahu in private much, much more conditional support than most commentaters have inferred? The two nations’ “red lines” are different: Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons for the US, and the much more nebulous “zone of immunity” for Israel. It’s clear from that interview and subsequent events that the US insists on pursuing negotiations and sanctions before any attack can be justified, and it’s also clear from Thursday’s statements that the US believes that there is time to continue that direction.

What if Obama told Netanyahu that any attack on Iran before the US red line is reached will receive no support from the US? The US has not always supported Israel’s wars. In 1956, the US opposed the plan of the UK, France, and Israel to take control of the recently-nationalized canal.

There seem to be two people who want a war with Iran: Netanyahu and Barak.

Did Barak think he could smoke out a report or encourage war hawks in the administration to get behind it? This administration doesn’t have many war hawks, and there has been little of this kind of stepping out of line. It’s possible that Barak could have misjudged or simply overplayed his hand.

Emptywheel takes this to be a straightforward leak to and by Israel, a laundering of another accusation toward Iran in a runup to war. In other words, the US and Israel are in collusion. But she admits that the later US rebuttal doesn’t make sense in that context. I think there is one way that it might, and that would be to make the US look like a bystander if Israel is about to bomb Iran. That interpretation still puts the US in the position of undercutting Israel, though.

Could Barak’s outburst be a Crazy Nixon ploy? Is he, in other words, trying to show Obama that he will leak classified information, do anything, in order to pave the way for an attack on Iran? And, incidentally, show the Iranians and everyone else that he’s about to attack? The continuing bluffing that Israel has indulged in means that subsequent bluffs have to be stronger. The problem with a Crazy Nixon ploy is that it is Israel that will be hurt in a war of its own making, through both Iran’s retaliation and world opinion.

There is a ring of desperation to Ehud Barak’s actions over the last week. A leader who was confident that the US would unconditionally back Israel in a strike against Iran would not have to cite secret (and perhaps nonexistent) reports. He would coordinate and act. The desperation seems to imply that no longer-range plan for a joint attack on Iran exists. Such a plan could be used to pressure for action behind the scenes.

The Times of Israel reported yesterday that Netanyahu and Barak are days away from deciding to attack (as they have been in the past). Today the same newspaper reports a speech by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in which he says that all the talk of an attack “contribute nothing to our ability to deal with the threat that Iran poses for Israel.” Haaretz likewise plays down the need for war.

So the back-and-forth continues. The noise out of Israel is likely to make negotiations harder and increases the possibility of a misstep.

I wrote this up a day or so ago. Here are some further links on this story.

Ben Caspit is getting tired of the empty bluster, but you wouldn't know that from Jodi Rudoren's piece in the NYT. Looks like Rudoren is going for the Judy Miller Award.

Plus, it looks like American rhetoric is being dialed up:

“This is an irresponsible and unprecedented act,” said an American official. “Something like this has never happened…that secret intelligence would be revealed either deliberately or unintentionally to the media. It’s exceedingly rare that a defense minister of a U.S. ally would speak out to the media about the existence of such a report, and bring forth details from it in order to advance his own political agenda.”

Thanks to Steve Hynd for e-mail/Twitter conversations, which are why this post appeared first at The Agonist. It's also at Nuclear Diner.

Chutzpah

Bibi Netanyahu tells Ban Ki-Moon how to do his job.

Just Wondering

Fareed Zakaria's being accused of plagiarism and apologizing for it brings a related question to my mind.

There are lots of Big Names who appear on television, write books and columns, maintain Facebook pages and tweet every twenty minutes. How much of that do they themselves do?

I blog, tweet, maintain a few conversations on Facebook and via e-mail, and have several other things to keep me busy, some involving writing. I produce one or two blog posts on a good day and perhaps a dozen tweets, including retweets.

Are the Big Names producing all the material that has their Big Names on it? Could overworked interns be part of the plagiarism problem?

Bits and Pieces - August 9, 2012

Most of the noise takes place on the anniversary of the atom bombing of Hiroshima. Today is the 67th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki.

What would happen if a Tea Party-oriented militia took over an American town?

Mitt Romney, Tzipi Livni has something to tell you about the Palestinians.

Why the Iran oil sanctions are biting.

Turkey's relations with Iran are cooling.

Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the United States has a highly classified report, possibly a National Intelligence Estimate, on Iran that backs up what Israel has been saying. Divulging the existence of such a report is forbidden, and it's extremely bad form for a supposed ally to speak so publicly. Or it's possible that Barak is lying in an attempt to put yet more pressure on the Obama administration. The Israelis have made so many claims about Iran for the last decade that it's hard to tell. Whether there really is a report or not, this doesn't increase US government love for Israel.

Update: Here's the US rebuttal. No change in evaluation that Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon.

In other news, here's James Hansen's latest paper.

Thought Experiment

Let's say that a Sikh nationalist attacked a suburban Milwaukee Baptist church on a Sunday morning, killing six people and wounding a number of others, including a cop who was trying to rescue the wounded. Let's also say that said Sikh nationalist, who had to be killed during the action, was a member of two rock bands that composed music putting forth his group's racist views. He was also active on message boards advocating the ethnic superiority of Sikhs and the development of private militias. He had amassed the usual armory in his apartment. He had been trained in firearm and explosives handling.

What would the news look like today?

Extra credit: Substitute Muslim for Sikh in the paragraph above.

How it works for right-wing extremist groups.

Mathematical Set Theory, Please, Boing Boing

Maggie Koerth-Baker pens a very long post in Boing Boing to opine on what she thinks Christian fundamentalists have against set theory. She admits that her knowledge of set theory comes from classes in anthropological linguistics, which, the last time I looked, wasn't mathematics. It's mathematical set theory that the Christianists are opposed to, and Koerth-Baker cites the reason:

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

She slogs through some of her old textbooks and struggles with the multiplicity of infinities and figures that infinity has something to do with God and all, so that must be what the Christianists deplore. But it's simpler than that.

Mathematical sets are nice neat little things, the finite variety anyway, and the infinite ones aren't much messier. But we can just look at the "arbitrary and relative" finite sets to see that their laws are not "a creation of God and thus absolute."

A mathematical set contains numbers or number-like objects and operations. The choice of both is (somewhat) "arbitrary and relative," in that you have a finite number of objects in the set, chosen by the set's maker (not God), unlike the infinite natural numbers and the infinite number of fractional and irrational numbers between integers. The operations are also chosen by the set's maker (not God). So you could construct a set in which 3 times 5 does not equal 5 times 3. It's all in the definitions.

So you have these odd little (and sometimes infinite) number systems in which things don't go according to intuition, presumably God-given and absolute in fundamentalists' minds. But sets show us the internal workings of mathematics, and they are useful for a variety of things, many pretty abstract. I've always looked at them as fun games and small laboratory experiments.

But definitely not God-given.

Bits and Pieces - August 6, 2012

Nation's sane people to nation's insane people: "Please stop shooting us." Apparently that's too much to ask. Is there commentary that the Sikhs should have been armed and shot the guy down, or doesn't that apply to brown people? And, um, gun control.

Speaking of people who are trying to kill us, Felix Salmon looks at a graph of crazy computer trading and comes around to believing that we need a financial-transactions tax to stop this insanity.

I posted a link the other day to Bradley Strawser's views on drone warfare. Strawser says the Guardian got him wrong in several ways.

Long article by Frank Pabian and Sig Hecker on a possible North Korean nuclear test and related matters. Back in the spring, when everyone was excited about the possibility of a test, I figured that there wouldn't be one. On another topic entirely, I've been saying to friends that I think an Obama landslide in November is a distinct possiblity. Now Michael Tomasky agrees with me. I need to start saying my more outrageous thoughts on this blog. And yeah, I know they don't count if I didn't post them. None but those two just now.

Curiosity and the Future of Space Exploration

The Curiosity team did it! Curiosity Rover landed safely on Mars and sent back a photo. The landing sequence was extremely complex and had to be controlled from the spacecraft because the transit time for signals between Earth and Mars is too long for the ground crew to control it.

This success was the product of a NASA team. NASA oversaw the project and contracted parts out to many organizations.

But we have continued to privatize government functions, and so there is an insistence on "privatizing" the Space Station. NASA does the preparatory, money-losing work, and then private industry moves in to take the profits, which seem to be primarily from rich people who want yet another thrill. Of course, the "privatization" will be on government money. 

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) today won a $440 million contract with NASA to develop the successor to the Space Shuttle and transport American astronauts into space.

SpaceX has docked a craft with the Space Station. So maybe they can do this. Anyone want to bet that they will find that they need more money to do it?

And then there's Kickstarter and SkyCube, a much more modest project. Send in your ten bucks to get a piece of it!

It may be a good thing to have multiple funding models for space projects. But NASA and the government have really succeeded with Curiosity.

Bits and Pieces - August 2, 2012

The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976  How deniers do it. It's not just the WSJ.

I am loathe to get into the arguments on drones. It seems to me that killing fewer people with a more precisely targeted drone is better than wiping out a town with a less-precise missile. There are issues of responsibility - who makes the kill decision and how that fits into the conduct of war - and of tactics - whether it's a smart thing to do in a particular situation. I'd like to see more discussion on the subject. I'm pretty close to this guy in my thinking.

Another feminist who recalls the idea that we were going to have to change society.

I agree with Stephen Walt: this seems like a really bad idea.

And, speaking of desensitization, I find these photos desensitizing, although their maker is trying to make a point about desensitization. And a photoshopped version of a famous Far Side cartoon that they reminded me of.

Some empirical evidence that gun control works very well indeed.

I don't have much sympathy for Jonah Lehrer. I didn't realize, until a friend pointed it out to me this week, that Lehrer wrote this article, which, upon my first reading, seemed like one of the dumbest I had ever read in the New Yorker. More here from someone who actually dealt with him. Look guys (I use the term advisedly), there are plenty more smart people out there, some of them female. Give them a chance and let Lehrer find a nice job proofreading or maybe teaching science in a private school.

A photo tour of some of the Manhattan Project sites that may become part of a national park. Mostly Oak Ridge and Hanford.

Bits and Pieces - August 1, 2012

Surveillance makes all sorts of animals crabby. I've really wanted to photograph the curve-billed thrashers in my yard, and now I've got one. The birdcam is an automatic camera that I set in strategic locations. The thrasher is sitting on the birdbath.

Roger Cohen's review of Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup, by Christopher de Bellaigue, is one of the more helpful things I've read in understanding Iran. Probably should read de Bellaigue's book, too.

A map of Poland and the Baltic States in 1920. Some insights there, too, on why Latvia has been less successful than its neighbors. The Treaty of Tartu, signed between Finland and Estonia on one side and the Soviet Union on the other, was concluded in October 1920, and moved the boundary further east on the south side of Lake Peipus. The map may have been published earlier.

How about a hotline telephone between Washington and Tehran?

I'm not going to do a lot of campaigning. Regular readers know I'm going to vote for President Obama in November. But David Rothkopf nails what Mitt Romney needs to do after his awful foreign trip.

Breaking! Physicist Discovers 1990s Climate Science!

I'm not going to say much about Richard Muller's enlightenment on climate science. If you want links and some rather conventional commentary, you can find them here.

The problem I see with what Muller has done is the message it sends to the climate "skeptic" community: yes, you really should figure it all out yourself.

In terms of science, Muller and his team have contributed a very tiny bit to the evaluation of the temperature record. That's fine; another confirmation is always good, but far from worthy of an op-ed in the New York Times. Although apparently they are having some trouble getting their papers through review.

Many physicists are convinced that they can evaluate all other parts of science. Their reasoning is that, since physics looks at basic issues of science, all other science is derived from it. This is true in that quantum mechanics, a part of physics, underlies chemistry, and chemistry underlies biology, and so on. Much of engineering can be thought of as applied physics. Climate science deals in heat and mass transfer, chemistry, and some biology around the edges. So it's all just detail once you know physics, right?

Well, not quite. It seems that the physicists can't calculate much about chemical reactions, let along how DNA reproduces. But scientists in those other disciplines have developed ways of understanding chemical reactions, the relationships within species, and heat and mass transfer that bypass the calculations physicists can't do. It's necessary to learn a few other things - facts and techniques - in order to get to that understanding. Physicists frequently don't see the use of that part of the process, since, after all, their methods could calculate all that, if they had infinitely large computers.

And they love to discover things! I recall a physicist who had just received the enlightenment that metals form hydrogen when they react with acids. First few weeks of freshman chemistry, but whatever. He filled a beaker too full of concentrated acid, placed it on my optical bench (a delicate piece of equipment with a metal top), and dropped (from some distance so it would splash) a bolt into it. Bubbles! Wow!

I am worried about Muller's message, though. In good physicist fashion, he makes clear in his op-ed that there are some parts of climate science that await his discovery. That paragraph will be used by the climate deniers to justify their "skepticism." See, I'm being scientific; you have to prove it to me. These same people don't doubt that the plasma tv they buy at Costco will work. They don't doubt that their stove will light. They don't doubt that cigarettes cause cancer, or that organic produce is better. [Extra credit: which of that series doesn't fit?] But they doubt climate change and act as though they're going to prove it to themselves.

They won't, of course. They have no idea how to go about that. They feel justified now that a real scientist has taken an equally ignorant position and will loudly proclaim that they're skeptics, just like the real scientists.

Cross-posted to The Agonist.

Mitt Can't Get It Right

Easy trip to prove foreign-policy bona fides. Friendly nations: check. Happy events: check (well, the Olympics, if not Tisha b'Av). Easy issues: check (in Britain and maybe Poland; Romney may think the issues around Israel are easy). So what continues to go wrong?

Right now The Twitter is going wild with Dan Senor's statement that - what? - the US may join with Israel in a strike on Iran? Maybe not. The words are hard to parse, but definitely further in that direction than the official US policy has gone. I won't parse it here - others have done that. This came after the announcement that the press would be excluded from Romney's fund-raiser at the King David Hotel. Something wrong with pretty much every noun in that sentence, but we'll plow on with the question of why.

I've had bosses about whom I've said that if they would randomly guess what their next move needs to be, we would all benefit. Random would imply something like being wrong only half the time, but some geniuses manage to run a real streak of wrong.

I've been thinking that being a boss (and only a boss, in jobs that may have had more to do with his ancestry than capabilities) is part of Romney's problem here. Bosses are always right. Jhaber and respondents at Kevin Drum's blog point this out: it's the underlings, advisers in this case, who are always wrong. Operating in that mode brings on stupidity and group-think. We are the Masters of the Universe!

But there's got to be more to it than this. Dan Senor has been in government, although those who have chosen him are not among my heroes. He should know what kinds of thing can and can't be said, unless that group-think has set in. And contributing to that group-think would be the influence of the Republican Party and its primaries, with the convention still to arrive.

The Tea Party and neocons have made clear their preferences: war with Iran, as soon as possible. Think about nukes, and by god, we'll bash you! That'll show them! This is consistent with the preferences of the defense contractors, who are frightened by the Republican-desired sequester. Hard for them to figure out a strategy, but probably quick gains through a war look good when the longer term looks bad. I'm wondering what angle of this looks good to the banksters: $200 a barrel oil, or higher, would tank the world economy. They probably have themselves covered and are shorting the US, if that looks profitable.

So Mitt's pretty hemmed in. He's enlisted the war advisors. He still has to please the bloodthirsty delegates to the Republican convention. And his old friend Bibi, who said he really didn't recall the guy from their consulting days, would be displeased with anything less than a backing of his plans for war, so Mitt's rich backers, like Sheldon Adelson, might take their money elsewhere.

Where is not clear. There's no clear Tea Party favorite in the wings, and Newt, Adelson's previous favorite, doesn't seem likely. Sarah Palin might be a brokered choice.

I'm looking forward to popping a lot of popcorn the end of August.


Cross-posted at The Agonist.

Inkblot's Gone Missing

Sad news today from Kevin Drum, originator of Friday Cat Blogging. The major subject of that activity and potential presidential candidate, Inkblot, disappeared Tuesday night.

Like many of the commenters over there, I've had cats go missing and return. So best wishes from all of us at Phronesisaical for Inkblot to return to the Drums full of kitty mystery and love.

And if you live in the Irvine, California, area, keep an eye out for him! That's the latest mug shot above.

Update 7/29/12): Kevin found Inkblot's body. It looked like a coyote got him. I'll miss Inkblot. I have no cats of my own now, so Inkblot was a delightful surrogate. Thanks for sharing him, Kevin!

Land of Hope and Glory

See, Mitt, some of us lefties like Edward Elgar, although he wasn't responsible for the lyrics. I played Pomp and Circumstance about 300 times in the band for my high school's graduations. I'm not sure where I learned the lyrics, but I know them well. Elgar is sometimes thought of as THE composer of the later British Empire, but some of his music is much more interesting than that, like the Enigma Variations. And I like Pomp and Circumstance. Cool photos of Britain here too.

Bits and Pieces - July 25, 2012

Speaking of climate change, I've been trying to get through this article for a week, and finally succeeded. I'm not at all convinced he's got things right - I know people who were doing what is called mesoscale modeling of the atmosphere like forever to predict safe times for nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site and then went on to model mountain weather, dispersal of gases from industrial accidents, and other useful stuff. The author doesn't mention them. It's also confusing that he talks about Edward Teller in one place and then has a separate section for the National Laboratories at the end that doesn't say much.

It's a big topic, though, and the article will give you some sense of that if you take it with a grain of salt.

On guns, Jill Lepore wrote an article last spring that covers a great deal of history. The NRA hasn't always been the "guns for all" organization it has become.

Mitt Romney gave a speech to the VFW yesterday on foreign policy. Stephen Walt has some questions he'd like to ask Mitt. I haven't matched up Romney's fact sheet with Walt's questions. It seems more pointed than some of the quotes I've seen from the VFW speech and far more dangerous.

For a change, the Texas School Board has come down on the side of evolution.

A lot of plagiarism in Europe.

A bad-luck guy who survived two atom bomb explosions and lived to 93.

Climate Change and Nuclear Power

I don't write nearly as much about climate change as I think and read about it. Others do a good job of writing about it, and I sometimes link to the better or more sensational of them. But I'm beginning to feel like more of us need to speak up.

We need more low-carbon energy. Nuclear power is low-carbon energy. This is another subject I don't write about as much as I think and read about it. The reason there is that I disagree with so many people on so many issues. There have been far too many arguments, the same ones over and over, with little illumination. Occasionally I think I have something that might cut through the hostilities, and I post that. But the fights and misinformation are usually too much. Plus I am dumb enough to be on a listserv and a discussion board where those fights are recapitulated over and over and over again.

There's another place that the topics of climate change and nuclear power intersect. Both are science-based, so there should be ways to find reasonably definitive answers to the questions that arise. Not fully definitive, perhaps, but science should provide a common ground. This all too often turns out not to be the case.

People who accept the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere and warming the earth frequently feel that nuclear power is dangerous and cannot be considered to replace fossil fuels in generating electricity. People who want more nuclear power frequently argue against global warming, even as they promote their views as being supported by science.

Suzy Hobbs Baker calls foul on the latter group today. It's a post well worth reading, on the American Nuclear Society website.

Hitler Finds Out Climate Change Is Real

A World With More Guns

One of the larger questions after last week’s massacre in Aurora, Colorado, has to do with the kind of lives we want to lead, how we arrange society to provide safety and peace of mind.

Going to the movies should be a pleasurable experience. Airport-like security measures for entry would pile anxiety about being groped or arrested on top of anxiety about being shot. That is unlikely to happen, but the anxiety about being shot will remain. Less peace of mind for all of us, and lower profits for the movie industry. That’s one consequence of last week’s events.

Most Americans grew up in a world with a lot fewer guns than we have now, most of them kept at home in locked cases. We don’t expect gunfights in the streets. But the NRA has lobbied hard to open up laws to carrying guns in public and encourages its members to have their weapons with them to change our expectations. That’s a different kind of world than we’ve had since Bat Masterson cleaned up Dodge City.

Dan Baum likes guns, but he didn’t carry them. He decided to see what it was like and wrote about his experience two years ago. He found that he wasn’t comfortable carrying them in normal social situations.

Baum describes the training sessions necessary to acquire a concealed carry permit, which seem to have more to do with indoctrination into a way of thinking than with gun safety.

In both classes, and in every book about concealed carry that I read, much was made of “conditions of readiness,” which are color-coded from white to red. Condition White is total oblivion to one’s surroundings—sleeping, being drunk or stoned, losing oneself in conversation while walking on city streets, texting while listening to an iPod. Condition Yellow is being aware of, and taking an interest in, one’s surroundings—essentially, the mental state we are encouraged to achieve when we are driving: keeping our eyes moving, checking the mirrors, being careful not to let the radio drown out the sounds around us. Condition Orange is being aware of a possible threat. Condition Red is responding to danger.

Contempt for Condition White unifies the gun-carrying community almost as much as does fealty to the Second Amendment…

Just as the Red Cross would like everybody to be qualified in CPR, gun carriers want everybody prepared to confront violence—not only by being armed but by maintaining Condition Yellow.

At the end of the article, he longs to go back to Condition White.

I don’t think Condition Yellow, which is also called situational awareness, must be linked to guns. It seems to be a normal part of my life, although perhaps that wouldn't be true for those who didn’t grow up in cities.

I grew up in the northern New Jersey suburbs, learned to ride the bus when I was nine years old, and frequently used buses into and the subways in New York City by the time I was twelve. I was also subject to frequent warnings from my mother, which had grown from “The tramps will cut you into little pieces and stuff you in the sewer” relative to my earlier forays into the several blocks and intriguing railroad between home and the playground.

I don’t feel like I’m constantly checking for danger, though. Warning flags spring up in my head at appropriate times. In Tallinn, a rhythm of footsteps too much like mine and perhaps several yards back in the crowd filtered into my consciousness. I didn’t look back, speeded up my pace, and crossed the street. The footsteps went away. Another time, a friend and I were examining a map near the Eiffel Tower, and both of us turned simultaneously to see a young woman moving toward us and our wallets. She turned and rejoined her friends leaning on a wall.  I’ve changed pace in many cities or just avoided certain streets that didn’t feel quite right.

This seems like elementary prudence to me.

Knowing that others are carrying guns has to push toward Condition Orange, particularly if gun instruction is as Baum describes, with nothing on how to fire (or when not to) in a crowd. If more people carry guns, we have to be alert for an incident that could provoke cross-fire from none-too-competent but hyperready civilians.

Condition White would be a thing of the past.

Here’s how Baum’s consciousness changed when he was carrying a weapon:

Moving through a cocktail party with a gun holstered snug against my ribs makes me feel like James Bond—I know something you don’t know!—but it’s socially and physically unpleasant. I have to remember to keep adjusting the drape of my jacket so as not to expose myself, and make sure to get the arms-inside position when hugging a friend so that the hard lump on my hip or under my arm doesn’t give itself away. In some settings my gun feels as big as a toaster oven, and I find myself tense with the expectation of being discovered. What’s more, if there’s a truly comfortable way to carry a gun, I haven’t found it. The revolver’s weight and pressure keep me constantly aware of how quickly and utterly my world could change. Gun carriers tell me that’s exactly the point: at any moment, violence could change anybody’s world. Those who carry guns are the ones prepared to make the change come out in their favor.

….

I’m more alert and acute when I’m wearing my gun. If I’m in a restaurant or store, I find myself in my own little movie, glancing at the door when a person walks in and, in a microsecond, evaluating whether a threat has appeared and what my options for response would be—roll left and take cover behind that pillar? On the street, I look people over: Where are his hands? What does his face tell me? I run sequences in my head. If a guy jumps me with a knife, should I throw money to the ground and run? Take two steps back and draw? How about if he has a gun? How will I distract him so I can get the drop? It can be fun. But it can also be exhausting. Some nights I dream gunfight scenarios over and over and wake up bushed.

When he wore his gun openly:

Overall, I felt less safe with the gun openly displayed than with it concealed. I worried that someone would knock me on the back of the head and steal it, or that some genuinely aggressive nutcase would challenge me to draw. Mostly, though, I felt obnoxious. In all likelihood, I was making somebody silently anxious.

That would be me he was making anxious, probably with his anxious body language.

I will probably stop carrying my gun. It’s uncomfortable, distracting, and freaks out my friends; it’s not worth it. I miss Condition White. If I lived in a dangerous place, I might feel different, and I may continue wearing a gun when I travel to such places (at least to the ones that allow it).

From his final paragraph:

From a public-safety standpoint it may matter little that lots of people are carrying guns now, but if accessorizing with firearms becomes truly au courant, the United States will feel like a different place. We’ll be less dreamy and more secretive. We’ll spend more energy watching one another and less on self-obsession. We’ll be a little more on-task, more cognizant of violence and prepared to participate therein.

That’s what someone says who is experienced and comfortable with guns. His concerns about what carrying guns does to human interactions seem to dovetail with mine.

Cross-posted at The Agonist.

Bits and Pieces - July 23, 2012

Five Republican economic lies debunked. Apparently these clowns cost the US at least $1.3 billion with their histrionics last summer. At least. And, after a thirty-year experiment that is ending predictably, I don't see why anyone finds this kind of economics commendable.

Eugene Kaspersky, of computer security fame.

Looks like the Obama administration is working to undo a bit of the thirty years craziness and get contractors out of USAID. Good luck to them.

I think I've posted on this before, but it's worth repeating: vaccines don't cause autism. Not having them does cause disease, death, and disability.

Uvaria Grandiflora

Photo: Dokmai Dogma

Aurora - Last Friday

It is unacceptable that every few weeks there is a murder spree by someone who’s mentally unstable and in possession of assault weapons.

Much of the commentary on the latest mass shooting by a madman in Aurora, Colorado, has focused, correctly, on the availability of guns. Some of the usual apologetics for keeping guns in anyone’s hands that can hold them have tried to shift the conversation to the fact that the shooter was clearly crazy.

Both are the problem: too many people in need of help aren’t getting it, but they can get guns.

John Ballard covers the lack of help and institutionalization for people with serious mental and emotional problems. He picked up on the same quote I did:

A San Diego woman identifying herself as the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes told a news crew Friday morning that authorities "have the person," ABC news reports.

The woman, who said her name was Arlene, had awoken unaware of the news of the shooting and had not been contacted by authorities. She immediately expressed concern that her son may have been involved.

"You have the right person,” the mother said, speaking on instinct. “I need to call the police. I need to fly out to Colorado.”

That last quote echoes one of the worst fears I’ve heard from friends with mentally disturbed children. The other of their worst fears is that their children have been killed by someone else. Ballard explains in much more detail, with links to several articles on the subject.

Of course, the people who feel that guns and other implements of death should be available to all are frequently also the people who feel that we shouldn’t be taxed to pay for, say, community mental health services. They also tend toward the unthinking libertarianism that insists that the mentally ill should find their own way, outside of institutions and medication.

Commentary has focused on the extreme availability of guns that have no possible use beyond killing people and the influence of the National Rifle Association on the Congresscritters that can’t stand up to it. That commentary is remarkably uniform and depressing; the short version is that the NRA has won and has impressed its vision of guns everywhere onto the American public. There will be more killings of innocent adults and children. Nothing will change. That’s the message from

Timothy Noah

John Cole

The Onion

E. J. Dionne

Charles Pierce

Tom Tomorrow (Oh, wait! Does that say Tucson?)

Garance Francke-Ruta

Adam Gopnik

James Fallows

A few excerpts:

 Fallows:  There will be more of these; we absolutely know it; we also know that we will not change the circumstances that allow such episodes to recur.

Pierce:  For we know in our hearts that nothing is going to be done. The only great movement toward gun control will continue to exist only in the voices that ring in the heads of people like Wayne LaPierre.

Gopnik:  The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue.

Let’s look at some statistics.

Brady Campaign listing of mass shootings in the US since 2005 (62-page pdf)

Juan Cole:  58 Murders a year by Firearms in Britain, 8,775 in US

Kieran Healy: Comparative death rates from assault across different societies

Assault deaths within the US

The geography of gun violence across the United States from data from the Centers for Disease Control

Self-reported gun ownership in October 2011 was at its highest since 1993. Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats, men more than women. One in three Americans personally owns a gun.

In April of this year, support for gun ownership was slightly ahead of support for gun control laws, 49% to 45%. Republicans and men are much more supportive of gun ownership.

Last year, the NRA spent $2.9 million on lobbying, while gun-control advocates spent about one-tenth of that amount, a paltry $240,000.

I may have more to say about this later. For now, my sympathies to all who have been affected by all this gun violence. We must change this.

Update (07/24/12): I see that Holmes's mother disputes the way that quote about having the right person was framed.  Even so, this is the kind of phone call that parents of children with mental health problems dread.



Cross-posted to The Agonist.

Utøya - One Year On

It's a year since Anders Behring Brevik set off a bomb in downtown Oslo and then attacked summer campers on Utøya Island.

Sindre Bangstad recounts what has happened since then. Some of the difficulties she describes will surface again as James Holmes, the Aurora killer, is tried.

And here's my reaction from last year. I was in Estonia, in forests and islands very much like those around Utøya.

Update (7/23/12): An interview with Jens Stoltenberg, who was Prime Minister when the events took place.

Bits and Pieces - July 19, 2012

Good news! The amount of spam (computer-style) in the world has been cut by half! (H/T John Cole)

Not good news - Bill McKibben on global warming.This article lays out clearly what we need to do and are not doing.

Pretty good news - Photos of Tepco workers removing fuel elements from the Fukushima #4 spent fuel pool, the one that receives so much press. Notably, those who inspire that press with concerns that the spent fuel pool will end life on earth have not commented.

Israel's Iron Dome missile shield is about 75% effective against rockets launched from Gaza.

Good On Ya, John McCain!

Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person. This is about who we are as a nation, and who we aspire to be. What makes America exceptional among the countries of the world is that we are bound together as citizens not by blood or class, not by sect or ethnicity, but by a set of enduring, universal, and equal rights that are the foundation of our constitution, our laws, our citizenry, and our identity. When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it.

He's talking about accusations made by Representative Michelle Bachman, R-MN.

Read the whole thing.

Uzbekistan Leaves the CSTO

What's that? You've never heard of the CSTO?

It's one of the latest in Russia's wishful thinking back to the Soviet times. The Commonwealth of Independent States was the figleaf when the Soviet Union lost its republics. And the Central Asian states weren't quite ready to leave the Union. Later, there were the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. You can probably guess that that is Russia's attempt at an answer to NATO.

About two weeks ago, Uzbekistan left the CSTO. Its president, Islam Karimov, is a dictator left over from the Soviet times. With the war on in Afghanistan, transit for ISAF and particularly the US through Central Asia has become important. Russia doesn't like the US in Central Asia. Central Asian states like leverage against both Russia and the US. So Karimov has been in and out of the would-be-Soviet alliances, which, by the way, have very weak structures, so it's easy for him to play his games.

 Some interesting articles on this event. The motivations are likely a combination of what I've said, but the individual articles stress different factors.
Nathan Hamm, "Uzbekistan Exit from CSTO Reveals Limits of Russia’s Eurasian Integration Plans"
Richard Weitz, "Uzbekistan's CSTO Withdrawal Highlights Russia's Dilemma"
Alexander Golts, "The Collapsing CSTO"
Nicholas Redman, "Is Tashkent clearing the decks for the US?"

Cross-posted at The Agonist.

Talk Outside the Negotiating Room

Claims and counterclaims on Iran’s nuclear program continue. Here’s a sampling from Iran this week.

Reuters:

An Iranian lawmaker this week said parliament planned to ask the government to equip Iran's naval and research fleet with "non-fossil" engines, Press TV state television reported in an apparent reference to nuclear fuel.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad Khazaee, interviewed by Laura Rozen and Barbara Slavin:

“We will react if there is any provocative act from the other side,” Khazaee said. “We will not initiate any provocative steps.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi:

"For some reason whenever there is light at the end of the tunnel, somebody tries to cover up even that dim light," Salehi said. "The continuation of this (deadlock) ... is not in the interest of the international community, not in the interests of my country and not in the interest of the region."

A former Iranian interior minister, Abdollah Nouri, now acritic of Iranian leaders:

"The harms, disadvantages and pressures caused by the Iranian nuclear programme have got out of control and the establishment should make a reasonable and wise decision to find a way out of this deadlock in order to protect the country's national interests,"

The balance of threatening and pacific quotes from Iran varies from week to week. Which voices should we listen to?

The talks between Iran and the P5+1 seem to be settling into a routine. Rather than the greatly-hyped top-level talks, there are now monthly talks at lower levels. This is a good direction that will be improved by making the lower-level talks continue through the months, if that can be agreed.

Although both Khazaee and Salehi say some positive things, they also criticize the position of the P5+1, along with claims that Iran’s intentions are good. The Iranians have released their presentations from the talks, and the P5+1 has not, so there is no way to judge the criticisms. Releasing this kind of material is somewhat unusual, but perhaps a logical step in today’s Webbed world. It’s also a strategy to support Iran’s claim that they have nothing to hide.

From the P5+1

The US has sent warships to the Persian Gulf, some on normal rotations, some perhaps not. Sanctions against trade with Iran are increasing. But some of the verbal bluster has been toned down, too. Israel is making fewer threats of attack, and the negotiators are not speaking outside the meetings. But others are.

Sir John Sawers, the head of British intelligence MI6:

The Iranians are determinedly going down a path to master all aspects of nuclear weapons; all the technologies they need. It’s equally clear that Israel and the United States would face huge dangers if Iran were to become a nuclear weapon state.

 

Gen. C. Robert "Bob" Kehler, Commander, U.S.Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska:

At a breakfast forum on Capitol Hill, the Air Force four-star general noted “the presence of our strong conventional capabilities in the region [and] the positioning that we are doing for missile defense assets.

“And then ultimately, the president always has available the strategic nuclear deterrent to provide both a deterrent from an attack on the United States standpoint, but also an attack on our allies and friends.”

Dennis Ross, President Obama’s former adviser and special envoy to the Middle East and Iran, in an interview with Al-Hayat:

A diplomatic solution is still viable with Tehran because of “economic pressures” and “the changes in the regional balance of power.”

On the other hand, he acknowledged that the new Israeli government is “capable of making important decisions that can impact either national security or the peace process.”

The International Institute of Strategic Studies:

There is mounting evidence to suggest that, whereas the sanctions regime has not prevented Tehran from operating an increased number of centrifuges for uranium-enrichment activities or adding to its stockpile of fissile material, it has stymied efforts to develop and produce the long-range ballistic missiles capable of striking potential targets in western Europe and beyond. If sanctions continue to disrupt Tehran's access to the key propellant ingredients and components needed to produce large solid-propellant rocket motors, Iranian attempts to develop and field long-range ballistic missiles could be significantly impeded, if not halted altogether.

A high-stakes negotiation like this generates side-talk. Some of it is aimed at influencing the other side, and some at influencing the folks at home. Some will be from independent actors. Not all are giving voice to official policy, and, given a variety of actors within the governments, it’s not always clear what official policy is or who is speaking officially.As the negotiation becomes more serious, however, the governments involved will, if they are serious, back off from the side-talk. That seems to be happening, although slowly in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1.

Meaningful tidbits may be embedded in a great deal of noise. For example, both Khazaee and Salehi mention 20% enrichment.

Khazaee: The issue of the 20% enrichment is the first proposal of the 5+1 and the third proposal of Iran. So [this] is an issue that could be discussed and decided. It is not off the table…I’m sure that at the meeting in July [July 3] between the technicians that issue has been discussed.

Salehi added that his country "is ready to talk about" ending manufacturing of 20 percent-enriched uranium, "but of course it should be reciprocated properly."

This may be an attempt to highlight something that Iran may be willing to negotiate on. However, Iran has made statements like this before, only to repudiate them later. Salehi’s statement is carefully hedged.

Is There a Cultural Difference?

At times in the negotiations, an argument is presented regarding different cultural negotiating styles: the West are the poker-players and the Iranians are the bazaar merchants. Much of this discussion has seemed to me to condescend to the Iranians: of course poor rug merchants can’t understand what the cowboy westerners were offering. Often implied is that the West should communicate in Iran’s terms.

There are reasonably well-defined steps in international negotiations: both sides put forth their positions, and then negotiations establish what the sides are willing to trade off from the initial positions. Iran’s diplomats should be aware of these conventions and willing to work with them. Negotiations have their own motivations toward secrecy and bluff, two of the characteristics that are associated with both the poker-player and rug merchant stereotypes.

If two sides in a negotiation do have different styles, each may feel that it’s to their advantage to skew toward their style. There may be some of that on both sides, but it’s a mistake to believe that either is stuck in cultural ignorance.

In a personal aside, I must say that I have no gut feel for either style. Both seem to me to be over-infused with testosterone and not conducive to good outcomes. Both poker or haggling seem to me to be stylized ways to humiliate an adversary, never a good thing in negotiating, where all sides need to retain “face.” The type of negotiation I’ve practiced, I think largely successfully, has been the win-win approach put forth in “Getting to Yes,” by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury. The basic diplomatic style is similar to this.

Steve Hynd has summarized the haggling style with a scene from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian.” The participants make opening bids, much as in the diplomatic style, and then browbeat and insult each other to an agreement somewhere between the two, with much drama in the process.

I don’t think that the poker style, as Steve describes it in that post, is what the P5+1 are doing. Their proposal and negotiating style seem to adhere more to the diplomatic style. That doesn’t stop a number of voices, official or unoffical, from putting forth boasts of strength or possibilities of olive branches outside the negotiating room.

The noisier style of the Iranians does seem to contain elements of haggling. “Here’s our perfectly reasonable proposal, where’s yours?” “We are perfectly willing to negotiate, but only if you are willing to come up with [what we think of as] a fair counterproposal, which you haven’t done yet.” Both of those can be extrapolated from Khazaee’s and Salehi’s comments.

It’s possible that the Iranians would like to bend the style to one they are more comfortable with and feel could disconcert the P5+1; the corresponding silence from the P5+1 could be their version of the same. It’s also possible that Iran has been isolated from the international community for long enough that Iranian officials genuinely don’t understand diplomatic negotiations; there are indications that they have irritated other countries with inept diplomacy. That doesn’t mean that the conventions of diplomacy, which have been developed to facilitate difficult situations, should be broken for them.

It’s entirely possible that Iran’s claim to be considering building nuclear submarines, with the implication that they will up their enrichment to 95%, bomb grade, is intended as the sort of extreme haggling claim that Steve describes. That doesn’t mean that an equally inflammatory response from the P5+1 is a good idea, although it is the next logical haggling step.

There’s another possibility for the statement on developing nuclear submarines, and it would apply also to Iran’s refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect the Parchin facility that is suspected of being used for nuclear-weapons-related tests and its suggestion that it needs more 20% enriched uranium for four research reactors yet to be built. Iran may be trying to develop negotiating “chips.” The P5+1 have a great many chips in the sanctions; it would be possible to remove particular sanctions in response to Iran’s acceeding to P5+1 requests. Iran may be trying to develop additional bargaining chips beyond their enrichment program and their past weapons program. So Iran could offer not to enrich any more 20% uranium for the reactors that don’t exist yet for easing of the banking sanctions. Will the P5+1 find that a fair trade?

The danger in Iran’s trying to acquire these negotiating chips or making outrageous haggling claims, if that is what it is doing, is that these statements and actions have another interpretation: that there is no bluff here, but a real desire to acquire a nuclear weapon. Western intelligence estimates and Iranian officials say otherwise. But 95% enrichment? Refusal to come clean on the old weapons program? Stockpiling more 20% enriched uranium? It’s possible to interpret these actions as part of a nuclear weapons program. I don’t see it this way, but others might.

Bluffing, whether poker or haggling style, is dangerous. The overall trend seems to be to move toward the negotiating table instead, and we can hope that continues.

Cross-posted to Nuclear Diner and The Agonist.