In South Africa we have a major problem with crime, especially against woman and children. According to the government they are doing the best they can, but parents disagree.
In this shifting of responsibility it seems as though children have decided to do the grown up thing and take care of the problem with what they've got, cellphones.
Let's face it; no child in school really needs a cellphone. All the chatting and dating online is only dealing children's attention span another hard blow.
Yet there is one function that a cellphone has that appears to be a child's defence against disbelieving parents and doubting officers, the camera.
A child's word does not carry much weight when compared to that of a teacher, but once again history educates us that seeing is believing. There has been an increasing number of children stepping forward with footage taken from their cellphones that have caught the nation by surprise.
The defending offenders can try their best to prove these accusations as false, but there is just no use in arguing with the evidence.
A tool for your own protection
I really think that we must encourage children to use this tool for their own protection. If they see something happen to one of their fellow learners then they should record it. A lot of children that are being abused do not want to cry out because they think that no one will believe them.
This will help us to root out the unworthy teachers that ignore the law and still continue with physical punishment.
This might be a highly controversial idea that has its drawbacks, but while this county's crime against children is on the rise let us at least provide a method to give our children the confidence to overcome their abusers and speak out.
The nice thing about this whole idea is that once the footage is recorded you don't have to keep it on your cell phone until you get to the authorities. The footage can be sent as an MMS to someone immediately.
As with every tree of fruit bearing potential there is of course the odd rotten fruit. Childhood is our cruellest form in our steady march to old age, and cellphone cameras can incite cruel behaviour.
(There have been some video clips in the media recently of children beating each other and committing animal cruelty.)
But the days of two different scenarios for the same event being argued in court are nearing their end as more and more people are using there cell phones to create unarguable evidence.
Let the cell phone cameras be the new ears and eyes of justice. The more people realise that what ever they do might be recorded will hopefully discourage negative actions. So go on children let the cameras roll!
Capture the news on your cellphone and e-mail the photo/video to photos@news24.com and you could see your name on News24.
This column was submitted to News24 and part of our Craft your Column Competition. Send us your column and you could win a column writing contract worth R6 000.
Click here for more information.
See who has had a say on News24.
Disclaimer: This article was submitted by a News24 user. News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
Francois Faber, News24 User
Monday, April 2, 2007
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Stun Guns, Pepper Spray, Taser,
Every day now you will hear of some sort of attack against somebody and you are now trying to find ways of providing self defense and personal protection for you and your family. Below we provide you with information to some different types of personal protection products that you may want to consider, but the main ones that most people now use for self defense purposes include pepper sprays, stun guns, taser’s and personal alarms. You could if you wish also take self defense lessons, but these are often very expensive and can be difficult to arrange and fit in your daily schedule.
1. Stun Guns
These are becoming increasingly popular as a form of self defense personal protection and are effective at immobilizing a would be attacker without actually causing them any real harm. In fact a large number of people have decided to get rid of their hand guns and instead use a stun gun because of its non lethal immobilization capabilities. But if you are considering purchasing a stun gun you will need too find out if there are any restrictions on them in the state where you live as in some states they are actually illegal.
2. Pepper Spray
Pepper spray or as it is more commonly known mace is the most popular of all forms of personal protection products available on the market today. This type of self defense spray contains a chemical compound made from Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) which can be extracted from the pepper plant (hence the name pepper spray). This particular type of personal protection product immobilizes a would be attacker as it contains an inflammatory agent which causes two reactions when it comes into contact with human skin. Firstly the would be attackers eyes will shut hard and even if they are able to open their eyes they can not see as well as the spray dilates the capillaries and so causes them to be temporarily blinded. Secondly, they will immediately start to cough and as their breathing tissues have become inflamed will have difficulty breathing. Although these conditions are only temporary they can still be very debilitating for the person who has been affected by the pepper spray.
3. Taser
These are similar to a stun gun but when fired they will project two needles on wires which stay attached to the machine and attach themselves to the assailant and then produce an electric shock to their bodies in the same way that a stun gun does. However, with this particular type of self defense personal protection product you do not need to be right beside your would be assailant for it to be used you can be as much as 15 feet away from them.
Stun guns are normally an electroshock weapon which are able to temporarily disable a would be assailant or attacker using electric shock. There are some stun guns which when used the user will need to be close their attacker in order for them to be effective and there are others which can be used from a distance. However, when ever using a stun gun a person will need to make sure that it makes contact with the other person’s body.
During the last few years stun guns have become one of the most popular types of self defense weapons that are available for use by the public and which are non lethal to some people. Unfortunately there have been cases where people have died after being shocked with a stun gun but in most cases this is due to the person having some underlying health problem.
Stun guns use a high voltage electric shock in order to stop any attack and just by touching someone with the prongs on it will quickly immobilize them. Yet as they only use a very low amperage in most cases they cause no serious or permanent injury to the person who has been immobilized with one. Generally someone who has been touched with a stun gun when it has been activated will be immobilized for several minutes and are considered to be a reasonable force that a person can use in order to prevent an attack from happening.
When looking to purchase a stun gun you will find that there are many different sizes of stun guns as well as many different voltages that you can choose from. But generally the higher the voltage on it the quicker the full effect of the device will be felt by the would be assailant. Although lower voltage models are just as effective as the higher voltage ones they just take a few seconds longer for them to provide the full effect on the would be assailant. So if you are looking for something that really is effective and will work quickly for you then look at purchasing one which has a higher voltage to it.
Certainly most stun guns will only deliver between 1 and 2 milliamps of power when activated, whereas 1 amp of power would actually kill someone. So as you can see that these use an amperage which is well below that which could do any lasting damage to a person. However, there are plenty of others on the market which provide between 3 and 4 milliamps of power which makes them much more effective.
Finally the best thing with regard to stun guns is their life span. They could be used as many times as they are needed before either the battery needs replacing or recharging.
1. Stun Guns
These are becoming increasingly popular as a form of self defense personal protection and are effective at immobilizing a would be attacker without actually causing them any real harm. In fact a large number of people have decided to get rid of their hand guns and instead use a stun gun because of its non lethal immobilization capabilities. But if you are considering purchasing a stun gun you will need too find out if there are any restrictions on them in the state where you live as in some states they are actually illegal.
2. Pepper Spray
Pepper spray or as it is more commonly known mace is the most popular of all forms of personal protection products available on the market today. This type of self defense spray contains a chemical compound made from Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) which can be extracted from the pepper plant (hence the name pepper spray). This particular type of personal protection product immobilizes a would be attacker as it contains an inflammatory agent which causes two reactions when it comes into contact with human skin. Firstly the would be attackers eyes will shut hard and even if they are able to open their eyes they can not see as well as the spray dilates the capillaries and so causes them to be temporarily blinded. Secondly, they will immediately start to cough and as their breathing tissues have become inflamed will have difficulty breathing. Although these conditions are only temporary they can still be very debilitating for the person who has been affected by the pepper spray.
3. Taser
These are similar to a stun gun but when fired they will project two needles on wires which stay attached to the machine and attach themselves to the assailant and then produce an electric shock to their bodies in the same way that a stun gun does. However, with this particular type of self defense personal protection product you do not need to be right beside your would be assailant for it to be used you can be as much as 15 feet away from them.
Stun guns are normally an electroshock weapon which are able to temporarily disable a would be assailant or attacker using electric shock. There are some stun guns which when used the user will need to be close their attacker in order for them to be effective and there are others which can be used from a distance. However, when ever using a stun gun a person will need to make sure that it makes contact with the other person’s body.
During the last few years stun guns have become one of the most popular types of self defense weapons that are available for use by the public and which are non lethal to some people. Unfortunately there have been cases where people have died after being shocked with a stun gun but in most cases this is due to the person having some underlying health problem.
Stun guns use a high voltage electric shock in order to stop any attack and just by touching someone with the prongs on it will quickly immobilize them. Yet as they only use a very low amperage in most cases they cause no serious or permanent injury to the person who has been immobilized with one. Generally someone who has been touched with a stun gun when it has been activated will be immobilized for several minutes and are considered to be a reasonable force that a person can use in order to prevent an attack from happening.
When looking to purchase a stun gun you will find that there are many different sizes of stun guns as well as many different voltages that you can choose from. But generally the higher the voltage on it the quicker the full effect of the device will be felt by the would be assailant. Although lower voltage models are just as effective as the higher voltage ones they just take a few seconds longer for them to provide the full effect on the would be assailant. So if you are looking for something that really is effective and will work quickly for you then look at purchasing one which has a higher voltage to it.
Certainly most stun guns will only deliver between 1 and 2 milliamps of power when activated, whereas 1 amp of power would actually kill someone. So as you can see that these use an amperage which is well below that which could do any lasting damage to a person. However, there are plenty of others on the market which provide between 3 and 4 milliamps of power which makes them much more effective.
Finally the best thing with regard to stun guns is their life span. They could be used as many times as they are needed before either the battery needs replacing or recharging.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Defending what's important: Police officers teach self-protection techniques
WARNER ROBINS - Practicing a few basic self-defense techniques might help a woman escape a life-threatening situation. At least that's the idea behind the Warner Robins Police Department's weekly women's self-defense classes.
For Carol Stanley of Bonaire, being prepared for the unexpected was what brought her to the WRPD training center off Ga. 247.
"I don't want to panic if someone should attack me," she said. "I think I could hurt somebody if I'm afraid I'm going to be hurt."
Stanley attended the hands-on class with Connie Kinsey. The best friends were among almost 20 women attending the month of classes.
WRPD officers Mike Fennell and Chuck Hulon conducted this week's hour-long session, which dealt with hands-on techniques women could use if attacked by a stranger.
The officers focused on pressure points on the body which could be kicked, pinched, jabbed or twisted. In all cases, the idea was to apply enough moves and to react to have enough time to get away and seek help.
One technique included using the hands to push up and under the nose against the infra-orbital nerve, causing an attacker's head to be pushed back. Another included using four fingers to press under the jawbone at the top of the neck. Even a small amount of pressure was enough to make every participant rise to their toes.
"Wherever the head goes, the body will follow," said Fennell, who has practiced martial arts for many years.
Fennell and Hulon agreed it doesn't matter what size or strength an attacker possesses. Many of the moves that were being taught can overcome size or strength if performed correctly.
For example, distraction techniques such as grabbing and pulling a wrist and knowing to step away from an attacker and not toward his body can make a difference.
Moving around is also key.
"You don't fight in a straight line," said Fennell.
"Twist the body the way it's not meant to be twisted," added Hulon.
Picture someone standing in front of you with legs spread a few feet apart and hands down at the side. Then picture a triangle on the ground directly behind the body. If you were to push and direct one of the hands back to the center of the triangle behind that body, the rest of the attacker's body will follow. Moves like these can be done in one or two motions.
"You should take it personally when someone comes up to you and you don't want to be touched," Fennell added. "You have every right to defend yourself."
Conversation also focused on women being aware of their immediate surroundings, especially when out shopping. Many of the women in attendance admitted to leaving their purses unattended, if even for a few seconds, while in a store, or looking straight ahead and not paying attention to others around them.
"Get the big picture. Watch people," said Fennell.
Doing just enough to get away and run is what is most important.
"What we want them to do is just to do something. Don't freeze," he said.
Additional classes will be set up throughout the year for women wishing to learn about self-defense.
Self-defense tips
An assailant will establish ideal hunting grounds with casual surveillance points and will begin sizing up a potential victim. If followed, go into a store and watch. Request assistance. Attackers will look for witnesses before making contact and will look for an ambush point with low visibility to avoid being seen.
To reduce reaction time once you find yourself in a harmful situation: Examine your clothing for escape opportunities. Don't enter an unsafe place. Be alert and stay in crowds. Always be aware of points of escape and always maintain a gap. Have a verbal response ready. Have a plan and know your own physical limitations.
In terms of body language, stand erect and project an image of confrontation. Establish a defiant stance and be verbally confrontational if approached. Look for identifying features.
Security tips at home: Maintain adequate outdoor lighting. Keep bushes trimmed and don't hide keys in obvious places, like under a doormat. Have good window locks and install dead bolts.
Vehicle safety: Keep gas tanks filled and always keep doors locked. Park in well-lit areas and in populated locations. Always have keys ready when leaving a location and carry a cell phone. Also, have emergency equipment in your vehicle.
Jenny Gordon is a community news writer with The Houston Peach. To share an upcoming event or fund-raiser, or to nominate someone for our Peach Basket, please call 923-3109 ext. 240 or email jgordon@macontel.com.
By Jenny Gordon
TELEGRAPH STAFF WRITER
For Carol Stanley of Bonaire, being prepared for the unexpected was what brought her to the WRPD training center off Ga. 247.
"I don't want to panic if someone should attack me," she said. "I think I could hurt somebody if I'm afraid I'm going to be hurt."
Stanley attended the hands-on class with Connie Kinsey. The best friends were among almost 20 women attending the month of classes.
WRPD officers Mike Fennell and Chuck Hulon conducted this week's hour-long session, which dealt with hands-on techniques women could use if attacked by a stranger.
The officers focused on pressure points on the body which could be kicked, pinched, jabbed or twisted. In all cases, the idea was to apply enough moves and to react to have enough time to get away and seek help.
One technique included using the hands to push up and under the nose against the infra-orbital nerve, causing an attacker's head to be pushed back. Another included using four fingers to press under the jawbone at the top of the neck. Even a small amount of pressure was enough to make every participant rise to their toes.
"Wherever the head goes, the body will follow," said Fennell, who has practiced martial arts for many years.
Fennell and Hulon agreed it doesn't matter what size or strength an attacker possesses. Many of the moves that were being taught can overcome size or strength if performed correctly.
For example, distraction techniques such as grabbing and pulling a wrist and knowing to step away from an attacker and not toward his body can make a difference.
Moving around is also key.
"You don't fight in a straight line," said Fennell.
"Twist the body the way it's not meant to be twisted," added Hulon.
Picture someone standing in front of you with legs spread a few feet apart and hands down at the side. Then picture a triangle on the ground directly behind the body. If you were to push and direct one of the hands back to the center of the triangle behind that body, the rest of the attacker's body will follow. Moves like these can be done in one or two motions.
"You should take it personally when someone comes up to you and you don't want to be touched," Fennell added. "You have every right to defend yourself."
Conversation also focused on women being aware of their immediate surroundings, especially when out shopping. Many of the women in attendance admitted to leaving their purses unattended, if even for a few seconds, while in a store, or looking straight ahead and not paying attention to others around them.
"Get the big picture. Watch people," said Fennell.
Doing just enough to get away and run is what is most important.
"What we want them to do is just to do something. Don't freeze," he said.
Additional classes will be set up throughout the year for women wishing to learn about self-defense.
Self-defense tips
An assailant will establish ideal hunting grounds with casual surveillance points and will begin sizing up a potential victim. If followed, go into a store and watch. Request assistance. Attackers will look for witnesses before making contact and will look for an ambush point with low visibility to avoid being seen.
To reduce reaction time once you find yourself in a harmful situation: Examine your clothing for escape opportunities. Don't enter an unsafe place. Be alert and stay in crowds. Always be aware of points of escape and always maintain a gap. Have a verbal response ready. Have a plan and know your own physical limitations.
In terms of body language, stand erect and project an image of confrontation. Establish a defiant stance and be verbally confrontational if approached. Look for identifying features.
Security tips at home: Maintain adequate outdoor lighting. Keep bushes trimmed and don't hide keys in obvious places, like under a doormat. Have good window locks and install dead bolts.
Vehicle safety: Keep gas tanks filled and always keep doors locked. Park in well-lit areas and in populated locations. Always have keys ready when leaving a location and carry a cell phone. Also, have emergency equipment in your vehicle.
Jenny Gordon is a community news writer with The Houston Peach. To share an upcoming event or fund-raiser, or to nominate someone for our Peach Basket, please call 923-3109 ext. 240 or email jgordon@macontel.com.
By Jenny Gordon
TELEGRAPH STAFF WRITER
Saturday, March 24, 2007
SB-2356 Protect Possession/Guns/Cars/Parking Lots
ALERT !! ACT NOW -
USF & NRA Members and Friends
Marion P. Hammer,
NRA Past President,
xecutive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida
SUBJECT: SB-2356 To Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles in Parking Lots
SB-2356 protects employees and customers from having their private vehicles searched and protects against punitive action by anti-gun business owners who would deny you your right to have a gun in your car for protection and other lawful purposes.
SB-2356 stops ARROGANT CORPORATIONS that think they can control the personal private property you have in your private vehicle in parking lots.
The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold a hearing on
SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden on Tuesday, March 27, 2007.
Please immediately send an email to members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden
Below is a list of the email addresses of those you need to contact
IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL PUT:
PLEASE SUPPORT SB-2356/Protect Firearms/private vehicles
To send one email to all committee members at the same time, block or highlight the entire list and then copy and paste the block into the address section of the email.)
Senate Criminal Justice Committee
argenziano.nancy.web@flsenate.gov
aronberg.dave.web@flsenate.gov
bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov
crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov
dawson.mandy.web@flsenate.gov
king.james.web@flsenate.gov
lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov
wilson.frederica.web@flsenate.gov
wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov
You may also reach these Senators by phone:
Sen. Nancy Argenziano (R) Chair (850) 487-5017
Sen. Dave Aronberg (D) VC (850) 487-5356
Sen. Mike Bennett (R) (850) 487-5078
Sen. Victor Crist (R) (850) 487-5068
Sen. Mandy Dawson (D) (850) 487-5112
Sen. Jim King (R) (850) 487-5030
Sen. Evelyn Lynn (R) (850) 487-5033
Sen. Frederica Wilson (D) (850) 487-5166
Sen. Steve Wise (R) (850) 487-5027
BACKGROUND:
The bill will stop big business entities from searching private vehicles and violating the constitutional rights of customers and employees.
Your Second Amendment rights are at the very heart of this issue. In addition to prohibiting searches of private vehicles in parking lots. The bills also prevents businesses from asking customers or employees to disclose what personal private property is stored in a private vehicle and prevents action against customers and employees who refuse to divulge that private information. Further, it prohibits action against a customer or employee based on information provided by a third party.
Some Florida businesses are trying to ban guns in cars in parking lot used by customers and employees. They are discriminating against people who exercise their constitutional rights – they are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law.
Corporate giants have been trampling constitutional rights. Some are even attempting to coerce and intimidate gunowners into giving up constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
Your Rights are in Danger
Carrying firearms in a vehicle for hunting, target shooting or protection of yourself and your family obviously means you may have a need to leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to the theater, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to rent a movie, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel to conduct business.
Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Florida Constitution clearly and unequivocally permit law-abiding citizens to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes.
How can anyone justify telling a woman who is being stalked that she can't have a firearm for protection? In many cases police tell these women to get a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect her -- and calling 911 is nothing more than government sponsored dial-a-prayer.
A business owner or manager has no more right to say you can't have a firearm in your private vehicle than they have a right to say you can't have a pair of sun glasses, an umbrella, a Bible or a baby seat.
They want your money but they don't respect your rights.
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against employees and customers because of race, religion, political party, color of eyes, hair or weight. And they certainly can't discriminate because of the exercise of lawful self-defense. Make no mistake, these gun ban policies blatantly discriminate against people who choose to exercise a constitutional right and take responsibility for their own safety.
To find further contact information or help identifying your legislators
please use the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.
www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030
If you wish to be removed from this list please copy and paste this link and you will be removed immediately: http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/U.asp?B1.2.2274.1578191
* Please note: In their efforts to curb SPAM, many ISPs, servers and SPAM filters treat legitimate and legal bulk emails as SPAM. In order to ensure you receive NRA-ILA email alerts in a timely manner, please adjust your SPAM settings to accept bulk emails from the "nraila.org" and "www.ilaalerts.org" domains. Otherwise, there is a possibility that our email alerts will not make it to your inbox.
USF & NRA Members and Friends
Marion P. Hammer,
NRA Past President,
xecutive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida
SUBJECT: SB-2356 To Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles in Parking Lots
SB-2356 protects employees and customers from having their private vehicles searched and protects against punitive action by anti-gun business owners who would deny you your right to have a gun in your car for protection and other lawful purposes.
SB-2356 stops ARROGANT CORPORATIONS that think they can control the personal private property you have in your private vehicle in parking lots.
The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold a hearing on
SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden on Tuesday, March 27, 2007.
Please immediately send an email to members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden
Below is a list of the email addresses of those you need to contact
IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL PUT:
PLEASE SUPPORT SB-2356/Protect Firearms/private vehicles
To send one email to all committee members at the same time, block or highlight the entire list and then copy and paste the block into the address section of the email.)
Senate Criminal Justice Committee
argenziano.nancy.web@flsenate.gov
aronberg.dave.web@flsenate.gov
bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov
crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov
dawson.mandy.web@flsenate.gov
king.james.web@flsenate.gov
lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov
wilson.frederica.web@flsenate.gov
wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov
You may also reach these Senators by phone:
Sen. Nancy Argenziano (R) Chair (850) 487-5017
Sen. Dave Aronberg (D) VC (850) 487-5356
Sen. Mike Bennett (R) (850) 487-5078
Sen. Victor Crist (R) (850) 487-5068
Sen. Mandy Dawson (D) (850) 487-5112
Sen. Jim King (R) (850) 487-5030
Sen. Evelyn Lynn (R) (850) 487-5033
Sen. Frederica Wilson (D) (850) 487-5166
Sen. Steve Wise (R) (850) 487-5027
BACKGROUND:
The bill will stop big business entities from searching private vehicles and violating the constitutional rights of customers and employees.
Your Second Amendment rights are at the very heart of this issue. In addition to prohibiting searches of private vehicles in parking lots. The bills also prevents businesses from asking customers or employees to disclose what personal private property is stored in a private vehicle and prevents action against customers and employees who refuse to divulge that private information. Further, it prohibits action against a customer or employee based on information provided by a third party.
Some Florida businesses are trying to ban guns in cars in parking lot used by customers and employees. They are discriminating against people who exercise their constitutional rights – they are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law.
Corporate giants have been trampling constitutional rights. Some are even attempting to coerce and intimidate gunowners into giving up constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
Your Rights are in Danger
Carrying firearms in a vehicle for hunting, target shooting or protection of yourself and your family obviously means you may have a need to leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to the theater, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to rent a movie, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel to conduct business.
Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Florida Constitution clearly and unequivocally permit law-abiding citizens to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes.
How can anyone justify telling a woman who is being stalked that she can't have a firearm for protection? In many cases police tell these women to get a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect her -- and calling 911 is nothing more than government sponsored dial-a-prayer.
A business owner or manager has no more right to say you can't have a firearm in your private vehicle than they have a right to say you can't have a pair of sun glasses, an umbrella, a Bible or a baby seat.
They want your money but they don't respect your rights.
Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against employees and customers because of race, religion, political party, color of eyes, hair or weight. And they certainly can't discriminate because of the exercise of lawful self-defense. Make no mistake, these gun ban policies blatantly discriminate against people who choose to exercise a constitutional right and take responsibility for their own safety.
To find further contact information or help identifying your legislators
please use the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.
www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030
If you wish to be removed from this list please copy and paste this link and you will be removed immediately: http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/U.asp?B1.2.2274.1578191
* Please note: In their efforts to curb SPAM, many ISPs, servers and SPAM filters treat legitimate and legal bulk emails as SPAM. In order to ensure you receive NRA-ILA email alerts in a timely manner, please adjust your SPAM settings to accept bulk emails from the "nraila.org" and "www.ilaalerts.org" domains. Otherwise, there is a possibility that our email alerts will not make it to your inbox.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners
By Michelle Malkin
"The Second Amendment," Charlton Heston used to say, "is America's first freedom." The Second secures the rest.
It's a message narcissistic journalists need to hear again. A decade ago, Heston chastised the media in a National Press Club speech for its collective ignorance, apathy and open hostility toward gun owners' rights: "Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed."
Forgings from the first cut of a .44 Magnum handgun are piled in a bin at the Smith & Wesson factory in Springfield, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2006. The .44 Magnum is the handgun made famous in Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" movie. Mike Golden, Smith & Wesson's CEO for the past two years, has targeted new technologies and sales to the military and police departments to ensure the company's future. Smith & Wesson's earnings have seen double-digit growth since Golden took over. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) Alas, Heston's prayers have yet to be answered. While courts have recently bolstered Second Amendment rights, endangering gun owners in the name of free speech continues to be the blood sport of the Fourth Estate.
Two weeks ago, the Roanoke (Va.) Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper's community under the sanctimonious guise of "Sunshine Week." The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: "I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."
Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed carry permit holders list was "about being for or against guns." But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: "A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not."
The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Trejbal admitted that he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate -- but published it anyway: "As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all [emphasis added], online at www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun."
After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database. Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: "Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it's still a public record." Let's review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals -- and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.
Public disclosure of concealed carry licenses varies from state to state. Eighteen states protect permit holders' privacy from public view. Virginia is one of 17 states that make licensee records public. If information is public, does it make it right for a newspaper to publish it? The media exercise discretion all the time in withholding the names of minors or rape victims. Why should the privacy of law-abiding concealed handgun permit holders be treated with any less concern?
While the Roanoake Times has retreated, the witch hunt against gun owners continues. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a "sting" operation targeting gun shops in five states for allegedly selling guns illegally. Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation report that Bloomberg sent unauthorized private investigators to conduct the operation -- without notifying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):
"The odor ripened when Bloomberg filed civil lawsuits against these gun shops, rather than turn over evidence to the proper authorities for criminal prosecution. Bloomberg's office refused to turn over that evidence, and instead the billionaire mayor launched a high-profile media campaign demonizing the targeted gun shop operators."
Bloomberg has, of course, earned the praise of the anti-Second Amendment media for his security-undermining stunt. The unholy alliance between Big Nanny politicians and journalists threatens us all.
Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .
Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox
"The Second Amendment," Charlton Heston used to say, "is America's first freedom." The Second secures the rest.
It's a message narcissistic journalists need to hear again. A decade ago, Heston chastised the media in a National Press Club speech for its collective ignorance, apathy and open hostility toward gun owners' rights: "Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed."
Forgings from the first cut of a .44 Magnum handgun are piled in a bin at the Smith & Wesson factory in Springfield, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2006. The .44 Magnum is the handgun made famous in Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" movie. Mike Golden, Smith & Wesson's CEO for the past two years, has targeted new technologies and sales to the military and police departments to ensure the company's future. Smith & Wesson's earnings have seen double-digit growth since Golden took over. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) Alas, Heston's prayers have yet to be answered. While courts have recently bolstered Second Amendment rights, endangering gun owners in the name of free speech continues to be the blood sport of the Fourth Estate.
Two weeks ago, the Roanoke (Va.) Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper's community under the sanctimonious guise of "Sunshine Week." The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: "I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."
Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed carry permit holders list was "about being for or against guns." But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: "A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not."
The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Trejbal admitted that he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate -- but published it anyway: "As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all [emphasis added], online at www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun."
After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database. Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: "Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it's still a public record." Let's review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals -- and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.
Public disclosure of concealed carry licenses varies from state to state. Eighteen states protect permit holders' privacy from public view. Virginia is one of 17 states that make licensee records public. If information is public, does it make it right for a newspaper to publish it? The media exercise discretion all the time in withholding the names of minors or rape victims. Why should the privacy of law-abiding concealed handgun permit holders be treated with any less concern?
While the Roanoake Times has retreated, the witch hunt against gun owners continues. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a "sting" operation targeting gun shops in five states for allegedly selling guns illegally. Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation report that Bloomberg sent unauthorized private investigators to conduct the operation -- without notifying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):
"The odor ripened when Bloomberg filed civil lawsuits against these gun shops, rather than turn over evidence to the proper authorities for criminal prosecution. Bloomberg's office refused to turn over that evidence, and instead the billionaire mayor launched a high-profile media campaign demonizing the targeted gun shop operators."
Bloomberg has, of course, earned the praise of the anti-Second Amendment media for his security-undermining stunt. The unholy alliance between Big Nanny politicians and journalists threatens us all.
Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .
Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox
Thursday, March 15, 2007
N.J. to ban sex offenders online?
Released sex offenders would be barred from using the Internet and online dating sites would face new security rules under bills to be considered today by the Senate amid worries about child safety on the computer.
"We're living in some very scary times," said Senate President Richard J. Codey, who is sponsoring the legislative package that has raised constitutional questions and opposition from Internet companies.
Under the plan, released sex offenders caught using the Internet would face up to 18 months in jail and fines of up to $10,000.
Sex offenders caught using the Internet to solicit a child would face a mandatory five years in jail, rather than the three years they face under current law.
A bill also would require online dating sites to notify New Jersey residents whether they do background checks, a proposal opposed by Internet companies such as Yahoo!, AOL, eHarmony and Match.com.
"Criminal background checks provide users of online dating with a false sense of security," said Bill Ashworth, director of state government affairs at Yahoo!
No federal law imposes Internet restrictions on convicted sex offenders, but Florida and Nevada have enacted such measures.
A U.S. Department of Justice survey of youths ages 10 to 17 found that about one in five received a sexual solicitation or approach over the Internet.
Such findings have prompted new laws in some states.
Colorado banned anyone from using a computer to talk to an unrelated child under age 15 without parental permission if the person is at least four years older than the child. Kansas and Oklahoma made electronic solicitation of a child a crime.
Under the New Jersey proposal, which has not yet been considered by the Assembly, convicted sex offenders would have to submit to periodic, unannounced examinations of their computer equipment, install equipment on their computer so its use could be monitored and inform law enforcement if they have access to a computer.
The state public defender's office has said it will look into the constitutional ramifications and expressed concern that barring juvenile sex offenders from the Internet would deny them educational opportunities.
By TOM HESTER Jr.
Associated Press
"We're living in some very scary times," said Senate President Richard J. Codey, who is sponsoring the legislative package that has raised constitutional questions and opposition from Internet companies.
Under the plan, released sex offenders caught using the Internet would face up to 18 months in jail and fines of up to $10,000.
Sex offenders caught using the Internet to solicit a child would face a mandatory five years in jail, rather than the three years they face under current law.
A bill also would require online dating sites to notify New Jersey residents whether they do background checks, a proposal opposed by Internet companies such as Yahoo!, AOL, eHarmony and Match.com.
"Criminal background checks provide users of online dating with a false sense of security," said Bill Ashworth, director of state government affairs at Yahoo!
No federal law imposes Internet restrictions on convicted sex offenders, but Florida and Nevada have enacted such measures.
A U.S. Department of Justice survey of youths ages 10 to 17 found that about one in five received a sexual solicitation or approach over the Internet.
Such findings have prompted new laws in some states.
Colorado banned anyone from using a computer to talk to an unrelated child under age 15 without parental permission if the person is at least four years older than the child. Kansas and Oklahoma made electronic solicitation of a child a crime.
Under the New Jersey proposal, which has not yet been considered by the Assembly, convicted sex offenders would have to submit to periodic, unannounced examinations of their computer equipment, install equipment on their computer so its use could be monitored and inform law enforcement if they have access to a computer.
The state public defender's office has said it will look into the constitutional ramifications and expressed concern that barring juvenile sex offenders from the Internet would deny them educational opportunities.
By TOM HESTER Jr.
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Pacific Arms Race
Why Asia Is Where the JSF Matters Most
By Christopher Griffin
ARTICLES
Armed Forces Journal
The conclusion of a second memorandum of understanding on the Joint Strike Fighter in December opened the door for the JSF to progress from being a paper airplane to an aircraft in production. Although the future of the JSF (also known as the F-35 Lighting II) remains clouded while the jet progresses through three separate designs, the aircraft promises to be the mainstay of U.S. and allied force structures in Asia for decades to come. What are the prospects for the JSF in Asia? What will its incorporation into allied air forces mean for the U.S.?
The answers are contingent upon yet-unmade decisions in Washington and in regional capitals, but two major paths are clear. The JSF promises to allow Washington and its allies to develop stronger capabilities for conducting joint operations by developing a common set of technological, doctrinal and logistical experiences. But if the aircraft is thrown too far off course by programmatic problems, or an inability for Washington and its regional security partners to develop common expectations for its employment, the benefits of its employment will be minimized.
New Kid on the Block
The Joint Strike Fighter was developed to be many things to many people: a successor to the conventional takeoff and landing F-16 fighter and A-10 attack aircraft for the U.S. Air Force; a short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) plane that could replace the Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Navy; and a carrier-capable successor to the F-18 for the U.S. Navy. By hinging all of these operational hopes on a single platform, the U.S. Defense Department took a large risk--the simultaneous development of various models of F-35A/B/C would vastly reduce the procurement and logistical costs of a successful program but also means that problems in the JSF would affect all U.S. services, as well as those of key allies.
The driving concept behind the F-35 is that the U.S. and its allies will require an affordable, fifth-generation tactical fighter that can replace the aging F-15 and F-16 air fleets, while delivering significant advances in joint interoperability, battle-space awareness and stealth. The essential features of the F-35 are intended to deliver on all these accounts. A combination of Link 16 and satellite communications ability will allow the aircraft to remain in constant communication with a wide range of friendly assets; a state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array radar and other sensor suites will give the JSF a highly developed view of the battle space; and its low-observable design will give the aircraft high survival rates for air combat and ground attack missions.
Indeed, the JSF is designed to be a "kid brother" to the F-22 Raptor, the advanced fighter that entered service with the U.S. Air Force in December 2005. The JSF incorporates many of the features designed for the F-22, but is a single-engine, single-seat aircraft that is intended to be affordable both for acquisition in larger numbers by the U.S. Air Force (roughly paralleling the current division between F-15 and F-16 inventories) and for export to U.S. allies and security partners. Current price estimates for the JSF run in the ballpark of $40 million to $60 million--a hefty sum, but far less than the $135 million price tag for the F-22, and comparable to the $45 million cost of an F-16 today.
The JSF and the Allies
The corollary role to the JSF's mission as a successor to the fourth-generation fighter aircraft in the U.S. military is that it is expected to be the dominant U.S. fighter export in coming decades and the major fighter in allied air forces as they shift to fifth-generation aircraft.
This global mission has driven the multinational organization of the JSF procurement program, in which partner countries contribute to the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase in order to gain industrial opportunities in the production of the F-35, as well as prioritized purchasing opportunities. Eight countries contributed a total of $4.5 billion to join the SDD phase of the program, ranging in three tiers of partnership (the U.K., with a $2 billion contribution, is the only Tier 1 partner). Israel and Singapore have also joined as noncontributing "security cooperation partners."
The JSF ran into early difficulties, with the SDD phase being extended by two years in response to an excessive weight problem (early modeling overestimated the amount of thrust the engines would generate, a special liability for the STOVL version) and contretemps over the sharing of sensitive technologies necessary for alliance partners to tweak the aircraft's performance. But at the end of 2006, Washington signed a memorandum of understanding (and a series of bilateral side agreements) with its development partners that will permit the JSF program to proceed to the production, sustainment and follow-on development (PSFD) phase of the program.
Current estimates for the PSFD phase of the JSF program are that the aircraft will enter into low-rate initial production this year, with optimized versions of each variant scheduled to take flight between February 2008 and January 2009. As production levels increase toward full steam by 2013, the early models of the F-35 will enter the American services, with large-scale exports to program partners expected to begin in 2012.
As with many U.S. arms-exports programs, the JSF faces an inherent contradiction. The main partners are European, with only one full partner of eight (Australia) and one security cooperation partner (Singapore) in Asia. But Asia is the only theater in which the JSF's capabilities are obviously necessary, as the proliferation of advanced fourth-generation fighters is quickly placing the legacy air forces of the U.S. and its security partners in the region at risk.
Russian exports (as well as licensed production) of the Su-27, Su-30 and MiG-29 have remained strong throughout the post-Cold War period. Meanwhile, China has recently begun producing its J-10 fighter in large numbers, has offered the aircraft for export to Pakistan and is looking at other possible markets. Cumulatively, these developments mean that the mainline fourth-generation U.S. exports are at risk of being outclassed throughout the region--in highly watched (albeit friendly) mock engagements with the Indian Air Force, U.S. F-15 and F-16 fighters suffered disproportionate losses in head-on engagements against Indian pilots flying Russian-built aircraft.
This shifting balance in air power between U.S. and foreign-built fourth-generation fighters strikes at both the heart of U.S. air strategy for the region and the value of a U.S. security guarantee to its partners there. The tyranny of distance dictates that future U.S. military operations in Asia will require a combination of air and naval superiority in order to guarantee access to the region, prevent airstrikes against U.S. bases and friendly assets and maintain open sea lanes for international trade. Without allies and security partners who can hold their own against potential aerial threats, the balance in the region will become precarious and the value of the U.S. as a stabilizer will diminish.
It is in light of these developments and concomitant risks that the value of the F-35 as an exportable aircraft rises. The F-35 will outclass any potential threat in the region for the foreseeable future and, in the service of U.S. friends, will provide a set of technologically and logistically interoperable air forces to work in collaboration with the U.S. as circumstances require.
Sky’s the Limit for Australia
Australia is the keystone JSF partner in Asia, as it has both joined the program as a Tier 3 partner (contributing some $150 million to the SDD phase) and is looking to purchase up to 100 of the aircraft in a complete recapitalization of its air force. In December, Canberra granted "first pass" approval for purchasing the JSF and signed the PSFD memorandum, both milestones in what Australian officials describing as the country's "total commitment" to the JSF.
Australia's participation in the JSF program symbolizes of the revitalization of the U.S.-Australian alliance under the stewardship of Prime Minister John Howard. In recent years, Canberra has shifted its national security focus from the traditional defense-of-Australia mission that focuses on maintaining control over the so-called "air-sea gap" that separates Australia from its continental and maritime Southeast Asian neighbors toward expeditionary operations. Australia's shift toward an expeditionary strategy inherently involves greater cooperation abroad (as well as an expanded security maintenance role in Southeast Asia and Oceania), as reflected in Australia's participation in operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Indeed, Australian defense officials speak of their relationship with U.S. forces not as "interoperability," but "seamless integration"--reflecting the county's ability to conduct aerial missions on par with its American counterparts.
Corresponding with Australia's strategic shift toward expeditionary operations, Canberra has also sought to transform the composition of its air force. It is moving from a legacy force comprising F-111 and F-18 fighter/bombers, which has provided the country a strong air capability but also shown the limitations to being the sole operators of one system (the F-111) and one of the few air forces to operate a primarily naval aircraft (the F-18). Indeed, logistical and defense industrial concerns are at the center of Australia's plan to move toward an air force structure that is more compatible with those of its primary allies.
The recapitalized Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) will be centered on a combination of F-35 fighters and the 737 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft (AEW&C), which Australia is developing through a defense-industrial partnership with Boeing. This new air fleet will provide Canberra with air superiority in the region for the foreseeable future, and with the additional purchase of aerial refueling aircraft, extend Australia's strategic reach into Asia and the world. The inclusion of the Wedgetail into the RAAF will complement the country's strong capabilities in signals intelligence, where the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar Network already gives it the best early warning capabilities in the region.
Canberra has made a big bet on the F-35 as the primary combatant in the evolving RAAF. In addition to its commitment to the SDD phase of the aircraft, Australia has taken the first step to approving funding for the aircraft (the Australian defense procurement process involves long-term funding commitments), the announced purchase of F-18E/F Super Hornets has also been described as a stopgap to fill immediate requirements while waiting for F-35 deliveries.
Australia has also expressed interest in serving as a regional logistical and maintenance hub for the F-35 under the so-called Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment program, a role that would make it a key partner for air forces throughout the region that eventually fly the JSF. As Australia moves to expand its role as a training and exercises partner for a large number of Asian countries and the U.S., this combination of technological capability, logistical support and security cooperation activism promises to make it a key air power in Asia for decades to come.
Singapore and Korea: Qualified Partners
Singapore is one of the most interesting security actors in Asia. The city-state maintains astoundingly close strategic ties with Washington, purchasing much of its equipment from U.S. suppliers, including its F-16 Falcons, AH-64D Apache attack helicopters and CH-47SD Chinooks, which are all based in the U.S., where it trains in close cooperation with American forces. Simultaneously, Singapore's government appreciates its geographic proximity to China and its other Southeast Asian neighbors and seeks to avoid being seen in the region as the tip of an American spear. The country has thus consistently sought to maintain a relationship with the U.S. that allows it to maximize the benefits of its relationship while minimizing what could be weighty costs.
Singapore has likewise demonstrated its commitment to this strategy when it decided in 2005 to purchase a squadron of F-15 aircraft against France's Rafale fighter, reaffirming the value of close ties with the U.S. Air Force in its acquisition and use of military aircraft. Sustained, strong ties with Canberra and other countries in the region also reinforce Singapore's ability to benefit from growing interoperability among U.S. security partners in Asia, and the city-state bases a portion of its air force in Australia.
This hedged relationship with Washington is reflected in Singapore's tie to the JSF program, in which it is participating as an "international security partner." In that role, Singapore has maintained representation at the JSF program office in the U.S. without having to make any financial commitment through the SDD phase of the program. When the JSF is released for sale through the foreign military sales program, Singapore will enjoy being at the front of the queue for purchases (along with Israel), whereas nonpartner countries will have to line up afterward.
If the degree of Singapore's participation in the JSF demonstrates how it seeks to use its hedged relationship with Washington to maintain as broad a set of strategic options as possible, South Korea presents an opposite trend, where Seoul is reluctant to commit to closer ties to Washington despite being a formal ally. Seoul recently procured a large number of F-15 aircraft from the U.S., but its emphasis on developing more self-reliant defense capabilities conflicts with the possible benefits for working with Washington on a program like the F-35 or even taking a qualified role as a security cooperation partner.
As Seoul considers future defense acquisitions, it also suffers from not having as widely developed a network of security partnerships as does Singapore. Whereas Singapore enjoys opportunities to exercise regularly with Australia and other major regional actors, the frosty relationship between Japan and South Korea has prevented the emergence of a cooperative military-military relationship between them. As a result, many of the advantages for multinational interoperability that may appear obvious to other potential JSF purchasers are not so for Korea.
As Singapore and South Korea watch the JSF program from their respective distances, their future procurement decisions will signal how they view their relationship with the U.S. Singapore appears well placed to enjoy an easily upgradeable relationship with Washington that allows it to maintain a broad range of strategic options. South Korea, meanwhile, is grappling with a relationship that it finds too restrictive at many levels--ready access to the F-35 may not be the greatest of its priorities, but will be an indicator of the future course of the alliance
The Little Japanese Giant
Tokyo's relationship to the Joint Strike Fighter captures the country's ongoing confusion in handling security issues: It seeks greater capabilities than the F-35 promises, but does not have a clear doctrine as to how it will use them; it has one of the most advanced defense industries in Asia, but is unable to participate in the JSF program due to a long-standing ban on arms exports. Tokyo will be grappling with these contradictions for years to come, and the F-35 program will be a useful example to see how it does so.
Japan is at the cusp of being a great air power in Asia. It has the best signals-intelligence capabilities, comprising a strong fleet of P-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft, 767 AEW&C aircraft and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. With its large numbers of F-15 and F-2 fighters, it has the muscle to exercise a leading role in the region but has not determined how it will use its powerful air force, which has long been dedicated to a strictly defense mission for the home island and territorial waters.
The current air-power debate in Tokyo is focused on whether Japan should purchase the F-35 or push for access to the more advanced F-22, which U.S. law restricts from being exported to even Washington's closest allies. Although this debate reflects the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force's preference for playing with the best toys, it also gets to the heart of how Japan sees its military developing in the future--as a bulwark against China's burgeoning air power, as a military ally capable of exerting airstrikes against such threats as North Korea's nuclear program, or as a more capable pacifistic state with a vague strategy for employing its strength.
At the same time that Tokyo has had difficulty deciding whether it will focus on procuring the F-22 or F-35, a set of policy restrictions dating back to 1976 prevented Tokyo from partnering on the JSF program. When Prime Minister Takeo Miki strengthened the country's restrictions on arms exports to be a comprehensive ban on exports to or investment in any country, it was widely viewed as a noble pacifistic gesture. Today, it means that Japan is becoming ever more excluded from trends in the global defense industry, with a highly capable base that can license and produce some of the best platforms in the world but that has not experienced the consolidation and integration that has characterized the rest of the global industry.
The emergence of the F-22 and F-35 has brought to a head the policy conundrum that the Miki arms restrictions introduced. With the emergence of such ever-more-advanced platforms as the F-22, Tokyo can no longer expect wholesale access to the transfer of the best technologies available. Meanwhile, Japan's defense industry risks becoming a backwater if it does not have access to the technologies and techniques that such international programs as JSF permit countries to share. Simply put, Tokyo is running out of time to decide how it will interact with the global defense industry if it is to remain an important actor.
Pending decisions in Tokyo and Washington on the future of the F-22 and F-35 should provide the two countries an opportunity to define how they see Japanese air power evolving in the coming decades, and the two countries will nurture their defense industries in support of the alliance. Failure to do so will leave behind a rare opportunity to rescue Japan from its doctrinal and political muddle on these vital questions.
Whither Air Power in Asia?
The F-35 will be the keystone of allied air power in Asia for at the first half of this century, but the question remains: What will Washington and its allies seek to do with that power? The emergence of the JSF program, the enhanced opportunities that it creates for interoperability and logistical cooperation, and the necessity for industrial partnerships in support of the program all create opportunities to address that question.
One obvious point is that the U.S. can no longer think of its procurement decisions strictly in terms of the requirements of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The high costs of aircraft, the necessity that they are produced in sufficient numbers to exploit economies of scale and the need to provision the air forces of allied powers mean that future procurement decisions will increasingly have to take the concerns of security partners into direct account. The degree of Australia's commitment to the JSF program--its largest single procurement project in history--indicates the stakes that U.S. allies have riding on what were once considered parochial decisions.
Likewise, the success (or failure) of the JSF programmatic level as it proceeds from SDD to PSFD phases will be closely watched by out allies when they consider cooperative defense-industrial projects in the future. Although the JSF symbolizes the type of program that can allow the U.S. and its allies to pool resources and mutually support one another, it is also a reminder that when we all take off together, we are landing together, as well.
Christopher Griffin is a research associate at AEI
By Christopher Griffin
ARTICLES
Armed Forces Journal
The conclusion of a second memorandum of understanding on the Joint Strike Fighter in December opened the door for the JSF to progress from being a paper airplane to an aircraft in production. Although the future of the JSF (also known as the F-35 Lighting II) remains clouded while the jet progresses through three separate designs, the aircraft promises to be the mainstay of U.S. and allied force structures in Asia for decades to come. What are the prospects for the JSF in Asia? What will its incorporation into allied air forces mean for the U.S.?
The answers are contingent upon yet-unmade decisions in Washington and in regional capitals, but two major paths are clear. The JSF promises to allow Washington and its allies to develop stronger capabilities for conducting joint operations by developing a common set of technological, doctrinal and logistical experiences. But if the aircraft is thrown too far off course by programmatic problems, or an inability for Washington and its regional security partners to develop common expectations for its employment, the benefits of its employment will be minimized.
New Kid on the Block
The Joint Strike Fighter was developed to be many things to many people: a successor to the conventional takeoff and landing F-16 fighter and A-10 attack aircraft for the U.S. Air Force; a short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) plane that could replace the Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Navy; and a carrier-capable successor to the F-18 for the U.S. Navy. By hinging all of these operational hopes on a single platform, the U.S. Defense Department took a large risk--the simultaneous development of various models of F-35A/B/C would vastly reduce the procurement and logistical costs of a successful program but also means that problems in the JSF would affect all U.S. services, as well as those of key allies.
The driving concept behind the F-35 is that the U.S. and its allies will require an affordable, fifth-generation tactical fighter that can replace the aging F-15 and F-16 air fleets, while delivering significant advances in joint interoperability, battle-space awareness and stealth. The essential features of the F-35 are intended to deliver on all these accounts. A combination of Link 16 and satellite communications ability will allow the aircraft to remain in constant communication with a wide range of friendly assets; a state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array radar and other sensor suites will give the JSF a highly developed view of the battle space; and its low-observable design will give the aircraft high survival rates for air combat and ground attack missions.
Indeed, the JSF is designed to be a "kid brother" to the F-22 Raptor, the advanced fighter that entered service with the U.S. Air Force in December 2005. The JSF incorporates many of the features designed for the F-22, but is a single-engine, single-seat aircraft that is intended to be affordable both for acquisition in larger numbers by the U.S. Air Force (roughly paralleling the current division between F-15 and F-16 inventories) and for export to U.S. allies and security partners. Current price estimates for the JSF run in the ballpark of $40 million to $60 million--a hefty sum, but far less than the $135 million price tag for the F-22, and comparable to the $45 million cost of an F-16 today.
The JSF and the Allies
The corollary role to the JSF's mission as a successor to the fourth-generation fighter aircraft in the U.S. military is that it is expected to be the dominant U.S. fighter export in coming decades and the major fighter in allied air forces as they shift to fifth-generation aircraft.
This global mission has driven the multinational organization of the JSF procurement program, in which partner countries contribute to the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase in order to gain industrial opportunities in the production of the F-35, as well as prioritized purchasing opportunities. Eight countries contributed a total of $4.5 billion to join the SDD phase of the program, ranging in three tiers of partnership (the U.K., with a $2 billion contribution, is the only Tier 1 partner). Israel and Singapore have also joined as noncontributing "security cooperation partners."
The JSF ran into early difficulties, with the SDD phase being extended by two years in response to an excessive weight problem (early modeling overestimated the amount of thrust the engines would generate, a special liability for the STOVL version) and contretemps over the sharing of sensitive technologies necessary for alliance partners to tweak the aircraft's performance. But at the end of 2006, Washington signed a memorandum of understanding (and a series of bilateral side agreements) with its development partners that will permit the JSF program to proceed to the production, sustainment and follow-on development (PSFD) phase of the program.
Current estimates for the PSFD phase of the JSF program are that the aircraft will enter into low-rate initial production this year, with optimized versions of each variant scheduled to take flight between February 2008 and January 2009. As production levels increase toward full steam by 2013, the early models of the F-35 will enter the American services, with large-scale exports to program partners expected to begin in 2012.
As with many U.S. arms-exports programs, the JSF faces an inherent contradiction. The main partners are European, with only one full partner of eight (Australia) and one security cooperation partner (Singapore) in Asia. But Asia is the only theater in which the JSF's capabilities are obviously necessary, as the proliferation of advanced fourth-generation fighters is quickly placing the legacy air forces of the U.S. and its security partners in the region at risk.
Russian exports (as well as licensed production) of the Su-27, Su-30 and MiG-29 have remained strong throughout the post-Cold War period. Meanwhile, China has recently begun producing its J-10 fighter in large numbers, has offered the aircraft for export to Pakistan and is looking at other possible markets. Cumulatively, these developments mean that the mainline fourth-generation U.S. exports are at risk of being outclassed throughout the region--in highly watched (albeit friendly) mock engagements with the Indian Air Force, U.S. F-15 and F-16 fighters suffered disproportionate losses in head-on engagements against Indian pilots flying Russian-built aircraft.
This shifting balance in air power between U.S. and foreign-built fourth-generation fighters strikes at both the heart of U.S. air strategy for the region and the value of a U.S. security guarantee to its partners there. The tyranny of distance dictates that future U.S. military operations in Asia will require a combination of air and naval superiority in order to guarantee access to the region, prevent airstrikes against U.S. bases and friendly assets and maintain open sea lanes for international trade. Without allies and security partners who can hold their own against potential aerial threats, the balance in the region will become precarious and the value of the U.S. as a stabilizer will diminish.
It is in light of these developments and concomitant risks that the value of the F-35 as an exportable aircraft rises. The F-35 will outclass any potential threat in the region for the foreseeable future and, in the service of U.S. friends, will provide a set of technologically and logistically interoperable air forces to work in collaboration with the U.S. as circumstances require.
Sky’s the Limit for Australia
Australia is the keystone JSF partner in Asia, as it has both joined the program as a Tier 3 partner (contributing some $150 million to the SDD phase) and is looking to purchase up to 100 of the aircraft in a complete recapitalization of its air force. In December, Canberra granted "first pass" approval for purchasing the JSF and signed the PSFD memorandum, both milestones in what Australian officials describing as the country's "total commitment" to the JSF.
Australia's participation in the JSF program symbolizes of the revitalization of the U.S.-Australian alliance under the stewardship of Prime Minister John Howard. In recent years, Canberra has shifted its national security focus from the traditional defense-of-Australia mission that focuses on maintaining control over the so-called "air-sea gap" that separates Australia from its continental and maritime Southeast Asian neighbors toward expeditionary operations. Australia's shift toward an expeditionary strategy inherently involves greater cooperation abroad (as well as an expanded security maintenance role in Southeast Asia and Oceania), as reflected in Australia's participation in operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Indeed, Australian defense officials speak of their relationship with U.S. forces not as "interoperability," but "seamless integration"--reflecting the county's ability to conduct aerial missions on par with its American counterparts.
Corresponding with Australia's strategic shift toward expeditionary operations, Canberra has also sought to transform the composition of its air force. It is moving from a legacy force comprising F-111 and F-18 fighter/bombers, which has provided the country a strong air capability but also shown the limitations to being the sole operators of one system (the F-111) and one of the few air forces to operate a primarily naval aircraft (the F-18). Indeed, logistical and defense industrial concerns are at the center of Australia's plan to move toward an air force structure that is more compatible with those of its primary allies.
The recapitalized Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) will be centered on a combination of F-35 fighters and the 737 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft (AEW&C), which Australia is developing through a defense-industrial partnership with Boeing. This new air fleet will provide Canberra with air superiority in the region for the foreseeable future, and with the additional purchase of aerial refueling aircraft, extend Australia's strategic reach into Asia and the world. The inclusion of the Wedgetail into the RAAF will complement the country's strong capabilities in signals intelligence, where the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar Network already gives it the best early warning capabilities in the region.
Canberra has made a big bet on the F-35 as the primary combatant in the evolving RAAF. In addition to its commitment to the SDD phase of the aircraft, Australia has taken the first step to approving funding for the aircraft (the Australian defense procurement process involves long-term funding commitments), the announced purchase of F-18E/F Super Hornets has also been described as a stopgap to fill immediate requirements while waiting for F-35 deliveries.
Australia has also expressed interest in serving as a regional logistical and maintenance hub for the F-35 under the so-called Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment program, a role that would make it a key partner for air forces throughout the region that eventually fly the JSF. As Australia moves to expand its role as a training and exercises partner for a large number of Asian countries and the U.S., this combination of technological capability, logistical support and security cooperation activism promises to make it a key air power in Asia for decades to come.
Singapore and Korea: Qualified Partners
Singapore is one of the most interesting security actors in Asia. The city-state maintains astoundingly close strategic ties with Washington, purchasing much of its equipment from U.S. suppliers, including its F-16 Falcons, AH-64D Apache attack helicopters and CH-47SD Chinooks, which are all based in the U.S., where it trains in close cooperation with American forces. Simultaneously, Singapore's government appreciates its geographic proximity to China and its other Southeast Asian neighbors and seeks to avoid being seen in the region as the tip of an American spear. The country has thus consistently sought to maintain a relationship with the U.S. that allows it to maximize the benefits of its relationship while minimizing what could be weighty costs.
Singapore has likewise demonstrated its commitment to this strategy when it decided in 2005 to purchase a squadron of F-15 aircraft against France's Rafale fighter, reaffirming the value of close ties with the U.S. Air Force in its acquisition and use of military aircraft. Sustained, strong ties with Canberra and other countries in the region also reinforce Singapore's ability to benefit from growing interoperability among U.S. security partners in Asia, and the city-state bases a portion of its air force in Australia.
This hedged relationship with Washington is reflected in Singapore's tie to the JSF program, in which it is participating as an "international security partner." In that role, Singapore has maintained representation at the JSF program office in the U.S. without having to make any financial commitment through the SDD phase of the program. When the JSF is released for sale through the foreign military sales program, Singapore will enjoy being at the front of the queue for purchases (along with Israel), whereas nonpartner countries will have to line up afterward.
If the degree of Singapore's participation in the JSF demonstrates how it seeks to use its hedged relationship with Washington to maintain as broad a set of strategic options as possible, South Korea presents an opposite trend, where Seoul is reluctant to commit to closer ties to Washington despite being a formal ally. Seoul recently procured a large number of F-15 aircraft from the U.S., but its emphasis on developing more self-reliant defense capabilities conflicts with the possible benefits for working with Washington on a program like the F-35 or even taking a qualified role as a security cooperation partner.
As Seoul considers future defense acquisitions, it also suffers from not having as widely developed a network of security partnerships as does Singapore. Whereas Singapore enjoys opportunities to exercise regularly with Australia and other major regional actors, the frosty relationship between Japan and South Korea has prevented the emergence of a cooperative military-military relationship between them. As a result, many of the advantages for multinational interoperability that may appear obvious to other potential JSF purchasers are not so for Korea.
As Singapore and South Korea watch the JSF program from their respective distances, their future procurement decisions will signal how they view their relationship with the U.S. Singapore appears well placed to enjoy an easily upgradeable relationship with Washington that allows it to maintain a broad range of strategic options. South Korea, meanwhile, is grappling with a relationship that it finds too restrictive at many levels--ready access to the F-35 may not be the greatest of its priorities, but will be an indicator of the future course of the alliance
The Little Japanese Giant
Tokyo's relationship to the Joint Strike Fighter captures the country's ongoing confusion in handling security issues: It seeks greater capabilities than the F-35 promises, but does not have a clear doctrine as to how it will use them; it has one of the most advanced defense industries in Asia, but is unable to participate in the JSF program due to a long-standing ban on arms exports. Tokyo will be grappling with these contradictions for years to come, and the F-35 program will be a useful example to see how it does so.
Japan is at the cusp of being a great air power in Asia. It has the best signals-intelligence capabilities, comprising a strong fleet of P-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft, 767 AEW&C aircraft and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. With its large numbers of F-15 and F-2 fighters, it has the muscle to exercise a leading role in the region but has not determined how it will use its powerful air force, which has long been dedicated to a strictly defense mission for the home island and territorial waters.
The current air-power debate in Tokyo is focused on whether Japan should purchase the F-35 or push for access to the more advanced F-22, which U.S. law restricts from being exported to even Washington's closest allies. Although this debate reflects the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force's preference for playing with the best toys, it also gets to the heart of how Japan sees its military developing in the future--as a bulwark against China's burgeoning air power, as a military ally capable of exerting airstrikes against such threats as North Korea's nuclear program, or as a more capable pacifistic state with a vague strategy for employing its strength.
At the same time that Tokyo has had difficulty deciding whether it will focus on procuring the F-22 or F-35, a set of policy restrictions dating back to 1976 prevented Tokyo from partnering on the JSF program. When Prime Minister Takeo Miki strengthened the country's restrictions on arms exports to be a comprehensive ban on exports to or investment in any country, it was widely viewed as a noble pacifistic gesture. Today, it means that Japan is becoming ever more excluded from trends in the global defense industry, with a highly capable base that can license and produce some of the best platforms in the world but that has not experienced the consolidation and integration that has characterized the rest of the global industry.
The emergence of the F-22 and F-35 has brought to a head the policy conundrum that the Miki arms restrictions introduced. With the emergence of such ever-more-advanced platforms as the F-22, Tokyo can no longer expect wholesale access to the transfer of the best technologies available. Meanwhile, Japan's defense industry risks becoming a backwater if it does not have access to the technologies and techniques that such international programs as JSF permit countries to share. Simply put, Tokyo is running out of time to decide how it will interact with the global defense industry if it is to remain an important actor.
Pending decisions in Tokyo and Washington on the future of the F-22 and F-35 should provide the two countries an opportunity to define how they see Japanese air power evolving in the coming decades, and the two countries will nurture their defense industries in support of the alliance. Failure to do so will leave behind a rare opportunity to rescue Japan from its doctrinal and political muddle on these vital questions.
Whither Air Power in Asia?
The F-35 will be the keystone of allied air power in Asia for at the first half of this century, but the question remains: What will Washington and its allies seek to do with that power? The emergence of the JSF program, the enhanced opportunities that it creates for interoperability and logistical cooperation, and the necessity for industrial partnerships in support of the program all create opportunities to address that question.
One obvious point is that the U.S. can no longer think of its procurement decisions strictly in terms of the requirements of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The high costs of aircraft, the necessity that they are produced in sufficient numbers to exploit economies of scale and the need to provision the air forces of allied powers mean that future procurement decisions will increasingly have to take the concerns of security partners into direct account. The degree of Australia's commitment to the JSF program--its largest single procurement project in history--indicates the stakes that U.S. allies have riding on what were once considered parochial decisions.
Likewise, the success (or failure) of the JSF programmatic level as it proceeds from SDD to PSFD phases will be closely watched by out allies when they consider cooperative defense-industrial projects in the future. Although the JSF symbolizes the type of program that can allow the U.S. and its allies to pool resources and mutually support one another, it is also a reminder that when we all take off together, we are landing together, as well.
Christopher Griffin is a research associate at AEI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
