Moderator: Peak Moderation
More>>>The British government has warned airlines around the world not to allow Edward Snowden, who leaked information on top-secret U.S. government surveillance programs, to fly to the United Kingdom.
The surprising thing is that it's taken so long for a Snowdon figure to put his head above the parapet.Over the past 13 years it has completely re-engineered and reoriented itself, thanks to the more than $40bn that the US government has invested in the agency, which NSA has used to hire more than than 10,000 new employees,
Iceland! What the F--k? Its a small country easily bullied by the States. Hong Kong is a very smart move, part of China but with a free legal system. Also allows him to fly to Russia or China direct if he is offered a deal by those two great powers.emordnilap wrote:Other places spring more readily to mind; Iceland, f'r instance. I thought Obarmy had been cosying up to China lately.
Interesting article.That year, the Pentagon had begun developing a 20,000 strong troop force who would be on-hand to respond to "domestic catastrophes" and civil unrest - the programme was reportedly based on a 2005 homeland security strategy which emphasised "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents."
The following year, a US Army-funded RAND Corp study called for a US force presence specifically to deal with civil unrest.
Such fears were further solidified in a detailed 2010 study by the US Joint Forces Command - designed to inform "joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense" - setting out the US military's definitive vision for future trends and potential global threats. Climate change, the study said, would lead to increased risk of:
"... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable."
The study also warned of a possible shortfall in global oil output by 2015:
"A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions."
That year the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review seconded such concerns, while recognising that "climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked."
Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of "large scale economic breakdown" in the US impacting on food supplies and other essential services, as well as how to maintain "domestic order amid civil unrest."
Well, it is up to him.Lord Beria3 wrote:Iceland! What the ****?emordnilap wrote:Other places spring more readily to mind; Iceland, f'r instance.
