Yap

A man is about as big as the things that make him angry
Winston Churchill

Pix

A remarkable photo at National Geographic of a Redwood tree.  Click the image for huge.  Its really worth the look.

My Pix

Trees at the now demolished Sands hotel in Las Vegas.  The Sands was the last place you could see the Vegas of the '50s and '60s.  Love those trees. 

Yap

Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock.
Ben Hecht

My Pix

   Field near London, Ont. 1980
   Kodachrome 25

This is one of the oldest slides I've got.  I think its from before I went to photography school.  Although there's nothing added or taken out, it still took 2 hours of photoshop to get it right.

Yap

Art is anything you can get away with
Andy Warhol

Yap

In politics stupidity is not a handicap.
Napoleon Bonaparte

My Pix

Columns, US Supreme Court, Washington DC, April 1995

Pix

    Trade routes, North Africa - 1889

My Pix

 

Window, Sharpsburg, MD
mid '90s
Kodak High-Speed Infrared

Fun Facts To Know and Share

4 million

The number of albums Michael Jackson has sold since his death.

Yap

Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is funnier.
Blore's Razor

WW2

A remarkable photo taken 7km from Hiroshima looking UP at the mushroom cloud.  The photographer was quick, the photo was taken about a minute after the explosion.

On August 6, 1945, the US Air force dropped the fist atomic bomb ever used operationally.  The target was Hiroshima, a city that had been spared fire-bombing to provide a clear picture of what the bomb could do. 

70,000 - 80,000 Japanese civilians died that day, with another 20,000 to 70,000 dying from their wounds by the end of 1945.

The bomb itself was the simplest possible design.  Extremely inefficient, but extremely reliable.  So reliable, they didn't feel the need to test it first.  To get a critical mass, they fired a hollow Uranium bullet at a cylindrical Uranium target.  The idea was that if you could bring the two sub-critical masses together fast enough, then you'd get a good detonation.  It worked.  Only 1.38% (828 grams) of the 60kg of U238 actually underwent fission, but that was good enough for a 12-13kt explosion.   1kt = 1,000 tons of TNT.  You'd need 13,000 FedEx trucks to carry the 13kt  of TNT.

 source: wikipedia

The gun-type bomb was crude and very dangerous for those making, handling or delivering it.  Anything that would cause the bullet to travel down the barrel towards the target would result in a critical mass.  The explosion would be a fizzle (North Korea's specialty).  Enough to kill anything within a few hundred meters.  I don't believe the US built another gun-type, switching over immediately to the plutonium implosion method.  Implosion was far more efficient and much, much safer for handling and delivery.

AFAIK, the only gun-type weapons subsequently built were for specialist applications by the US Army, and by the South Africans.  They built as many as five devices before abandoning their program entirely.  One would expect that the weapons were rarely, if ever, fully assembled.

There's a superb book that explains the Manhattan project in clear, understandable detail.  Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb.  A Pulitzer prize winner, easily found in most libraries.

When I was younger, it seemed obvious that the atomic bombings were war crimes.  Now I've changed my mind.  The terror bombings of German and Japanese cities were war crimes.  As was the German bombing of Rotterdam, Warsaw, many English cities and just about everything they did in Russia.  Gruesome crimes were routine by both sides in day-to-day combat in the Pacific.  But the atomic bombs were different.  The Americans became desperate to end the war without invading Japan.  They used the bombs with the intention of provoking a political collapse in Tokyo and thus a swift end to the war.  It worked.

-----
Note: War crimes are distinct from crimes against humanity and have a different legal basis.  Genocide is a crime against humanity regardless of whether it takes place during a war.  Its also worth noting that the most serious of all war crimes is not killing civilians, but engaging in a war of aggression.  During WW2, the Germans, Russians, Japanese and Italians started wars of aggression.  The US invasion of Iraq (but not Afghanistan) was a war of aggression.  People were hung after WW2 for engaging in the same activities as the Bush administration. 

Yap

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

Yap

Help fight illiteracy: Punch someone who doesn't know how to read.
thedonger

July 20, 1969

July 20, 1969 was the most magical night of my childhood.  We were staying at a cottage near Goderich on Lake Huron.  The people in the cottage next door had a TV with bunny ears.  They could get CBC and some Detroit stations on a good night. 

My father and went over around 9PM.  It was a double treat because I got to watch the moonwalk and stay up really late.  We were initially disappointed with the quality of the TV signal and had trouble understanding what we were looking at.  That changed when Armstrong appeared coming down the ladder.  Everyone was transfixed.  We all cheered when he stepped off the lander.  It was very exciting.  In addition, the TV coverage let us know that all over the world, things had come to a stop while a billion people watched the moment on TV.  For the first time, I think, a lot of people felt part of a global community.  This was a high point, not just for Americans, but for the entire race of humans.  Everyone felt like it was their achievement.

After a while, the excitement died down a bit.  Their actual tasks were kind of boring to watch, except every 30 seconds, you'd remember that they were on the moon.  Right now.  This second.  And you'd get excited all over again.

Around 11, my father and I walked the few hundred meters back to our cottage.  On that part of Lake Huron, there is a large cliff over the beach.  The path went along the top of this cliff.  You couldn't see the lake along most of the path because of trees.  But at one point, we came to a clearing.  And there, right in front of us was the nearly full moon.  It looked so close you could almost touch it.  I felt that if I looked hard enough, I'd be able to see Armstrong and Aldrin. 

The moon was low in the sky and a golden color.  Because we were high above the lake, the moon reflected in 10,000 golden shimmers in the water below.  I think it was the most beautiful, magical thing I've ever seen.

Yap

Deliberately buried? Huh! 
Dr. Heywood Floyd, 2001 A Space Odyssey

Pix

Apollo 11 blasts off, July 16, 1969.  That's over 6 million pounds of rocket and fuel to get 3 guys and their kit to the moon.

Pix

From the always fab Tofutti Break.

Fun Facts To Know and Share

     Photo from Smithsonian

According to New Scientist, trees evolved 385 million years ago, flowering plants 130 million years ago, and grasses 70 million years ago.  For contrast, the coelacanth has been around for 425 million years, crocodiles for 220 million years and the last common ancestor of apes and humans 6 lived million years ago.

Yap

Once a web community has decided to dislike a person, topic, or idea, the conversation will shift from criticizing the idea to become a competition about who can be most scathing in their condemnation.
Anil Dash

My Pix

Just shot this near my house.  Used Photoshop to increase the contrast a little and straighten the lines.  Otherwise, it didn't need anything.  I have noticed lately that my hands shake too much for precise framing and low light. I'll need to start using a tripod.
 --------------
Update: My doctor tells me that tremors are a common side-effect of Prozac.  Whew.

My Pix

    Columns outside the front of the US Supreme Court, Washington, April 1995.
    Kodak High-Speed Infrared.

I'm very pleased with this photo.  It gets close to the pure abstraction I like, with a simple structure and lots of pleasant details to sooth the eye.  I never got around to printing any of the photos I took in the mid '90s.  The photos of Washington, Civil War battlefields and Las Vegas haven't been seen before, even by me.

Pix

"Only Burnside could have achieved such a coup, snatching one last spectacular defeat from the jaws of victory."
Abraham Lincoln - after General Burnside's final failure.

My Pix

Dunker Church, Sharpsburg, Maryland - mid '90s
Kodak High-Speed Infrared

Should be in bed, but I have an urge to post photos.  Below is the same building in September 1862 by the great Alexander Gardner.

Pix

shark

I have no idea where this came from, but its dramatic.

Pix

Crossing the Ohio River, 1966 - Danny Lyon

Pix

From the always delightful Tofutti Break.  Communism seems to be a hot topic at the moment.  Possibly because 20 years is enough to get some perspective.

Israel, Iran and Nukes

Flight distances via the Saudi option.  Assumes take-off from Negev bases. Israel has 25 F-15 variants with a range of 2,200km and a large number of F-16s with a range of 2,000km.  They have some aerial refueling capability, but not for the 100 planes thought necessary for an effective attack.


As discussed before, some people believe Israel can and should attack Iran to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons.  However, proponents rarely deal with the operational realities of such a strike.  The Israeli Air Force is brilliant, but not magic.  They can do no more than token damage to the Iranian nuclear program for several reasons:

A raid would push Israeli planes to their farthest range, leaving very little time to deliver weapons.  There would be no margin for winds, equipment variation, weather or other unforseeable variables.  Here is an article that discusses range in detail.

The route to Iran has to cross either Turkish or Iraqi airspace.  Also Syria or Jordan, but they don't matter.  The Turks have the means to see the Israelis coming, so use of their airspace would have to blessed ahead of time.  In addition, Turkey is a NATO country.  A violation of their airspace by the Israelis would theoretically put them at war with all the other NATO countries.  Not a happy option for anyone. 

Crossing Iraq is even more problematic.  Iraqi airspace is controlled by the US Air Force.  The Israelis can't sneak through unnoticed, and it would be political suicide for the Americans to allow it.   They can't even pretend not to notice.  A 100+ plane strike force passing twice through USAF defenses suggests that anyone can penetrate US controlled airspace any time they want.

Word surfaced today that Saudi Arabia might allow an Israeli overflight.  I don't know if I buy it.  Even if true, it doesn't do the Israelis much good unless the Saudis allow them to land and refuel.  The Saudi route is well out of the way and at least some Israeli planes wouldn't be able to reach their targets.  Also, the Saudis are a conservative bunch unlikely to take such a spectacular political gamble.

But, let's assume the IAF somehow gets to Iranian airspace and have to cross hundreds of miles to reach their targets.  All the time subject to Iranian air defense measures.  These defenses would be concentrated around the targets the Israelis want to hit.  Significant losses at this stage would jeopardize the effectiveness of the mission. Wrecked Israeli planes on Iranian TV would be bad.  Dead Israeli pilots on Iranian TV would be worse.  But worst of all would be Ahmadinejad on TV sitting beside a captured Israeli.  There are enormous political downsides for Israeli politicians. 

For the sake of argument, however, let's continue with our assumptions and say that the Israelis evade or neutralize Iranian air defenses.  Due to the size of the IAF and the range of their equipment, they would not be able to deliver an overwhelming amount of ordinance.  They could probably destroy the Bushir reactor and other targets.  But the most important sites, like Natanz are underground and would require multiple sequenced precision hits from bunker buster bombs.  And even then the damage might not be catastrophic. 

There are various estimates floating around the web of the total damage the Israelis could inflict.  They vary between no delay at all to the Iranian program up to a five year disruption.  The consensus is a 2 year delay would be the best case.  With conventional weapons, they can do no more. 

If they want to deliver a knock-out blow to the Iranian nuclear program, there is only one option, nuclear weapons.  By using a combination of ballistic and cruise missiles, they could completely destroy the Iranian facilities.  The cruise missiles could be launched by submarines in the Arabian Sea and the ballistic missiles go too high to violate anyone's airspace.  As well, these delivery vehicles are almost impossible to defend against.  So nukes would solve all the Israeli operational issues. Obviously, the use of nuclear weapons would  create significant political problems internally and with their allies.

One thing we learned from the Cold War is that people with nuclear weapons get really serious and really rational really fast. If the Iranians did obtain a weapon, the last thing they'd do is use it against Israel because the result would be annihilation.  As soon as the Iranians had a second-strike capability, the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries would vanish.  Nuclear weapons are only good for one thing, keeping someone else from nuking you.  They can't be used against non-nuclear states for fear of world reaction.  They can't be used against nuclear states with a second strike capability because the result will be a black heap of rubble where your capital city used to be.  What if you attack and some or all of your weapons don't work?  Its just too risky.

But really, its hard to argue with Iran's ambitions.  Given what they've been through and the threats from Jerusalem and Washington over the last 8 years, they'd be fools not to proceed.  And Iran doesn't actually need a warehouse full of completed weapons.  It needs the capability and resources to assemble and deliver several bomb in a short period of time.   If we can live with a nuclear Pakistan, then we can live with a nuclear Iran.

Fun Facts To Know and Share

    Another useful Sumerian invention.

Why are there 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day?    Because of the Sumerians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians.  Here is a short and very interesting article about how it all started with the way Sumerians counted to 60 on their fingers.

Via ScienceRay

Fun Facts To Know and Share

    Coruscant from Star Wars 

"In 1000 A.D. Cordova, Spain was the largest city. By 1500, Bejing began its rise to power, and 300 years later it was the first city to be over a million people. By 1900 London emerged the world's supercity with over 6 million people. In 1950 New York was proclaimed the first "megacity" with a population of over 10 million people in the greater metropolitan area...

In 1950, there were 83 cities with populations exceeding one million; by 2007, this had risen to 468 urban areas of more than one million."

From The Daily Galaxy

Interesting, but historic population sizes are tricky.  I believe, for example, that Rome hit 1 million  or more around 100 AD and may have peaked at 2 million.  Various cities in China reached the 1 million mark at various times before 1500, including Bejing.  But let's not allow facts to spoil a good story, even if this is fun facts to know and share.  The last point is the most important because it is not the biggest city that matters, its the increasing and relentless urbanization of the human race.

Murky Iran

    An attempt to make the grim Republican Guards crest look inspiring.

Two weeks ago, it looked like street protests might bring down the Islamic Republic.  Then it looked like repression had worked and things would go back to "normal". 

Now it looks like neither is a likely outcome.  There are no other obvious alternatives, but the street protests have not brought down the government and the repression has not put the genie back in the bottle.  Instead, the botched stealing of the election has exposed deep political fault lines. 

The most serious of these seems to be over who is running the government.  There appear to be many in the establishment who worry that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC, commonly called the Pasdaran) have functionally taken over the republic and that they will run it in a manner that favors the expansion of their power.  Or put another way, Iran may no longer be an Islamic Republic, but a military dictatorship masquerading as an Islamic government. 

There has been widespread anger at the way protesters have been handled.  Many conservatives, even conservative clergy, apparently feel that the election was obviously stolen and cracking heads is not the best way to deal with the problem.  What is clear is that the Iranian military and police had no appetite for killing protesters.  The repression has been carried out almost entirely by the Pasadaran, and especially by their brownshirts, the Basij. 

That casts the political upheaval in a new light.  The Pasadaran has become something like the SS in Germany.  Not, and I mean this most seriously, in any way like the criminals who made up the SS or the horrendous crimes they committed.  But in a structural sense.  The SS became the most powerful institution in the 3rd Reich.  It was a party institution, not governmental, answerable only to the leader of the Nazi Party.  They had their own army, their own industrial operations and controlled all policing, security and intelligence apparatus. They were also widely appointed to bureaucratic positions in government.  Likewise, the IRG has their own army, their own industrial and commercial operations and control the Republic's nuclear weapons.  After the 2005 election, many Pasadaran were appointed to beurocratic positions in the government.  Also like the SS, they are theoretically controlled by the Supreme Leader.  But, Khameni's disastrous speech on Friday, June 19 has many wondering if he controls the Pasadaran or they control him. 

Ahmadinejad is an IRGC man and it is widely thought that the Pasadaran skillfully stole a close election in 2005 to put him in power.  However, the scale and blatancy of manipulation in the recent election is something else entirely.  It violates the deal between the regime and the populace.  People can do pretty much whatever they want in private, but must observe Islamic principals in public.  The government demands a minimal level of compliance, but does not insist on belief.  One aspect of this deal is that Presidential and Parliamentary elections are supposed to be free and fair.  Neither institution has much power in the Islamic Republic, and the mullahs won't let anyone they don't like run for office.  Positions taken by the President or Parliament can be overruled by the clergy, but they can't be ignored.  This providing an outlet for the otherwise powerless population.  The arrangement was effective and durable.  But the Pasadaran just broke the deal. 

As a result, everything may be in play.  There are lots of powerful people and political blocks in Iran.  If enough of those players get scared by the Pasadaran, real change may be in the air.  However, the best case scenario may be a return to a  more liberalized version of the status quo.  The worst case scenario would be a civil war with the Pasadaran on one side and the regular military on the other.  Despite fear mongering, nuclear weapons would not be an issue.  Nobody is going to nuke anyone else.  Remember what we learned in the Cold War, you can't actually use them, you can only threaten to use them.  Also, there is no outside country with an ability to intervene in a meaningful way.  This is an Iranian problem and will be solved one way or another, by the Iranians.

WW2

11th Panzer Division vehicles, 4:30am Central European Time, June 23, 1941.  Sixty-eight years ago today.

Iran - Another Side

     al-Sistani - he looks a bit sinister, but he's not.

There's a very interesting side-story developing in the Iran situation.  The linked article is really good.

The position of Supreme leader, as defined by Ayatollah Khomeini, is a new idea.  Traditionally, Shia clergy have avoided politics as a matter of doctrine.  Both the most traditional and most progressive wings of the clergy regard such a position as unsupported by tradition.  Khomeini could get away with it.  He did so partly by starting small and then bit by bit expanding the power of the position.  The position was first supposed to be based on the role of the the leader in being the concionce and spiritual leader of the country.  Then it expanded to become the spiritual gurardian of the country, then the highest arbiter between civil and spiritual matters, and finally something like a king. 

Through caution and a light hand, Khamenei has managed to also get away with it.  However, his ill-advised speech on Friday has stirred up clerical opposition.  For the first time in many years, people are discussing if a Supreme Leader with defined political powers is appropriate in Shia Islam.  

This is where it gets interesting.  Some hints have emerged of discussions in Qom (the religious capital of Iran) and Najaf.  Najaf is, of course, in Iraq.  Saying it is being discussed in Najaf is a reference to the man who lives in there, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.  al-Sistani is the most senior and revered of all Shia clergy.  Although Iranian, he has lived in Karbala for decades.  Saddam Hussein didn't dare touch him. 

al-Sistani is a fascinating figure.  His word is law to Shiites, but he is very careful about what he says.  Twice since the fall of Saddam's government, al-Sistani has saved Iraq from total meltdown by acting as adult supervision for the Shiite militias and then the  Shia government in Baghdad.  This is not to say he is everybody's best friend.  He is completely opposed to the American occupation, has never met with the Americans and famously didn't open a letter sent to him by President Bush.  I think that just on the basis of stopping an all-out war between the Shiite militas and the Americans in 2004, al-Sistani should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

He functions in Iraq the way the Iranian Supreme Leader was first defined.  He is an un-elected, non-office holding supreme religious authority.  There is no role for him under the Iraqi constitution, but as long as the government is run by Shia, his advice and fatwas cannot be ignored by any politician. 

If al-Sistani wanted to become the Supreme Leader of Iran, they'd kick Khamenei out in a minute.  But of course, al-Sistani doesn't want to run a country.  His work is more important than that.  That his attitude is gaining some traction in Iran is bad for Khamenei.  Although they love the perks and riches of power, some Iranian clergy may remember that it didn't always used to be this way.  That this is not the traditional order of things.  In al-Sistani's way of looking at things, the Iranian clergy is in dire risk of becoming just another political regime.  To the extent Khamenei publicly shows his power, he reduces the moral and spiritual authority of the clergy.  In the long-run, these are far more important than holding power in a government created by men. 

People are talking about the current unrest as a potential second revolution.  However, with his poor handling of the election and the unrest, Khamenei may be tempting an entirely different revolution from within.

Yap

Theorem: a cat has nine tails. Proof: No cat has eight tails. A cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore, a cat has nine tails.
From the Internets

Fun Facts To Know and Share

Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939 by a Swedish parliamentarian.  The nomination was withdrawn after a few days.  Hitler, needless to say, never had his Nobel moment.  It seems to be unknown if the parliamentarian; E. C. G. Brandt, was drunk, having a joke, or was hit subsequently by a clue stick.

Proof here.