organization:us department of defense

  • #Eternal_Harvest - USAF Bombing in Laos

    Here we have a data visualization of the bombings. Between June 9, 1964, and April 26, 1973, the US carried out the largest bombing campaign, per capita, in history, in Laos. US forces dropped, on average, 1.3 million pounds of bombs a day. For 3,243 days. On a country of 2.5 million people.

    This data was originally compiled by the US Department of Defense. This video shows missions from October 1965 through April, 1973.

    This video shows most of the logged attack missions flown over Laos by the US Air Force, Navy and Marines. This does not include missions without target coordinates, non-attack missions, missions flown by other countries, or missions flown before October, 1965.

    #cartographie #visualisation #bombardements #bombes #Laos #guerre_du_vietnam

  • Google’s AI is being used by US military drone programme

    DoD’s Project Maven uses tech firm’s TensorFlow artificial intelligence systems, prompting debate both inside and outside company Google’s artificial intelligence technologies are being used by the US military for one of its drone projects, causing controversy both inside and outside the company. Google’s TensorFlow AI systems are being used by the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) Project Maven, which was established in July last year to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to (...)

    #Google #algorithme #drone #militarisation

  • #Think_Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day

    An examination of 75 think tanks found an array of researchers who had simultaneously worked as registered lobbyists, members of corporate boards or outside consultants in litigation and regulatory disputes, with only intermittent disclosure of their dual roles.

    With their expertise and authority, think tank scholars offer themselves as independent arbiters, playing a vital role in Washington’s political economy. Their imprimatur helps shape government decisions that can be lucrative to corporations.

    But the examination identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy. Many think tanks also readily confer “nonresident scholar” status on lobbyists, former government officials and others who earn their primary living working for private clients, with few restrictions on such outside work.

    Largely free from disclosure requirements, the researchers’ work is often woven into elaborate corporate lobbying campaigns.

    #lobbying #fraude

  • Boeing Wins $667Mln Contract to Supply Qatar With Apache Helicopters

    The Boeing Company has won a two-thirds-of-a-billion dollar US Army foreign military sales contract to supply the Gulf Arab nation of Qatar with 24 Apache ground-support helicopters, the US Department of Defense announced.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Work on the contract will be performed in Mesa, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2020, the Defense Department noted.

    Boeing Company [of] Mesa, Arizona, was awarded a $667.5 million… foreign military sales contract (Qatar) for 24 AH-64E Apache helicopters, 1 Longbow crew trainer, ground support equipment, and Thales radios,” the announcement said on Tuesday.

    The Apache AH-64 has been described as a flying tank; it is a helicopter designed to survive heavy attack and is armed to inflict massive damage on ground forces.

    The AH-64 is designed to operate day or night, including in unfavorable weather and poor visibility.

    Ils remplaceront les 14 SA-342G Gazelle actuellement en service.

  • US military strategy for world domination targets Russia and China - World Socialist Web Site

    US military strategy for world domination targets Russia and China
    2 July 2015

    The US Department of Defense made public Wednesday its 2015 National Military Strategy, a 24-page document that outlines the perspective of the Pentagon for future military operations. The document makes for chilling reading.

    “Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield. They will have increasing implications to the US homeland.” So declares the foreword by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    #états-unis #chine #russie #géostratégie #géopolitique #défense #armement

  • Why Iran Must Remain a US Enemy

    Gareth Porter : du fait des énormes sommes d’argent en jeu pour les vendeurs d’armes étasuniens, les Etats-Unis ne sont pas prêts à conclure un accord avec l’Iran

    Since the start of the US nuclear negotiations with Iran, both Israeli and Saudi officials have indulged in highly publicised handwringing over their belief that such a nuclear deal would represent a fundamental strategic shift in US policy towards the region at the expense of its traditional alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    But the Obama administration is no more likely to lurch into a new relationship with Iran than were previous US administrations. The reason is very simple: The US national security state, which has the power to block any such initiative, has fundamental long-term interests in the continuation of the policy of treating Iran as an enemy.


    Since 2002 the US Department of Defense has spent roughly $100bn on missile defence, most of which goes directly to its major military contractor allies. That bonanza depends largely on the idea that Iran is intent on threatening the US and its allies with ballistic missiles.

    But an even bigger bonanza for the US arms industry is at stake. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regimes in the anti-Iran alliance have been pouring big money into Pentagon arms contractor coffers for years. A deal with Saudi Arabia for fighter planes and missile defence technology first announced in 2010 was expected to yield$100-150bn in procurement and service contracts over two decades. And that tsunami of money from the Gulf depends on identifying Iran as a military threat to the entire region.

    These sales are now integral to the health of the leading US military contractors. Lockheed, for example, now depends on foreign sales for as much as 25-33 percent of its revenue, according to the Times story.

    So the Israeli and Saudi fear of a supposed Obama shift in alliances doesn’t reflect fundamental domestic US political realities that are not likely to change for the foreseeable future.

  • Arming Egypt, by Nizar Manek - English edition blogs

    The #US doesn’t want to lose its access to the pyramids, nor does it want to allow its bilateral ties with #Egypt — the world’s fourth largest F-16 operator — to go limp. The two main categories under which US military equipment are sold to foreign customers — Foreign Military Sales (FMS, from the US Department of Defense stockpiles) and Direct Commercial Sales (from the manufacturers) — are a form of industrial policy, labelled an act of “rent-seeking” by a political elite and a “rent-granting” state, or a “strategic effort” by the US government to finance the growth of the defence manufacturing sector of the American economy, maintain its expertise in a global market for #weapons deals, and bolster employment levels.

  • Misreading ’Syria Transition Act’ In Turkey

    A US Department of Defense official familiar with Syria told Al-Monitor that “I cannot imagine that Congress is going to push Obama into a Syria policy that he does not agree with. Nor do I think that this act will ever pass through Congress”. The probability of a congressional backing is very low since the US public opinion polls demonstrate a consistent unwillingness for a military intervention in Syria. 

    Tony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., said, “Debating non-binding Congressional legislative gestures is a dubious proposition since they are little more than an exercise in political symbolism. The act clearly states that it does not authorize the use of military force, and only involves $250 million for Syrian transition expenses which would come from authorized funds when and if a transition expense occurred that the US actually wanted to support and that it could not cover with existing aid funds.” Overall, the act is a gesture and nothing more at this point.

  • War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery … and Fighting Back is “Aggression”

    The US Department of Defense recently promulgated a new “defense” guidance document: “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.” I use scare quotes because it just doesn’t seem quite right to use “defense” to describe a document that — like its predecessors — envisions something like an American Thousand-Year Reich.

    The greatest shift in emphasis is in the section “Project power despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges.” The “threat” to be countered is that China and Iran “will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities.”

    That refers to a long-standing phenomenon: What Pentagon analysts call “Assassin’s Mace” weapons — cheap, agile weapons that render expensive, high-tech, weapons systems ineffective at a cost several orders of magnitude cheaper than the Pentagon’s gold-plated turds. In the context of “area denial,” they include cheap anti-ship mines, surface-to-air missiles, and anti-ship missiles like the Sunburn (which some believe could destroy or severely damage aircraft carriers).

    Thus the Pentagon defines as a “threat” a country’s ability to defend itself effectively against attack or to prevent an enemy from putting offensive forces into place to attack it. Yes, you read that right: To the American national security establishment, it’s considered threatening when you prepare to defend yourself against attack by the United States. It’s the perspective of a Family Circus character: “Mommy, he hit me back!” That kind of double standard is pretty common in the National Security State’s assessment of the world.

  • #US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet | Project Censored

    “The US military is responsible for the most egregious and widespread pollution of the planet, yet this information and accompanying documentation goes almost entirely unreported. (...)
    The extensive global operations of the US military (wars, interventions, and secret operations on over one thousand bases around the world and six thousand facilities in the United States) are not counted against US greenhouse gas limits. Sara Flounders writes, “By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.””

    #armée #guerre #pollution #cancer #co2 ...