WASHINGTON — The United States is currently the world biggest weapons supplier — holding 30 per cent of the market — but the Obama administration has begun modifying export control regulations in hopes of enlarging the U.S. market share, according to U.S. officials.

President Barack Obama already has taken the first steps by tucking new language into the Iran sanctions bill signed in early July. His aides are now compiling the “munitions list,” which regulates the sale of military items.

The administration’s stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama’s drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.

Critics say the reforms are being rushed and warn that the expedited procedures could allow weapons technology to fall into the wrong hands.

India, which currently is seeking 126 fighter-jets worth over $10 billion, 10 large transport aircraft worth $6 billion, and other multi-billion dollar defense sales, could be among the possible beneficiaries. Allies seeking advanced U.S. weaponry and equipment, who now often buy elsewhere due to the cumbersome U.S. approval process, would draw immediate benefit from the reforms, U.S. officials said.

Calling in Close Air Support Currently, soldiers requesting air support have to call in and request it from higher-ups, setting off a time-intensive process of permissions and clearances. DARPA wants to reduce that process to a two-party communication: the soldier on the ground requests an air strike, and a robotic A-10 Warthog above obliges.

Like renewing your driver’s license at the DMV or getting someone from the cable company out to your place, calling in close air support can be a real process for troops on the ground. A request for an air strike from a commander on the ground goes through various higher-ups, analysts, lawyers, and other commanders, slowing the response time to a crawl. That’s why DARPA is launching the Persistent Close Air Support Program (PCAS), under which the scheme is simplified: ground troops ask for a strike, and a robotic warplane brings the ruckus, no middlemen necessary.

A-10 Warthog

The weapon of choice would be an optionally manned/unmanned A-10 Warthog, those destructive and somewhat ugly slow-flying aircraft that can deploy a battery of weapons against enemies below. Fast-acting A-10s would give Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC) — the soldiers within units that call in air strikes — the ability to “to visualize, select and employ weapons at the time of their choosing.” DARPA thinks this will “revolutionize how a JTAC is able to request and control near-instantaneous airborne fire support.”

But wait; doesn’t this kind of air-strike-on-demand go against the military’s current strategy of limited air power and reduced civilian casualties as dictated in Af/Pak by the recently ousted General Stanley McChrystal? It absolutely does. But keep in mind this is DARPA, and it’s innovating for battles a decade down the road. The goal of PCAS is to create tools that will reduce the time lag between request for support and an actual air strike from half an hour or more to a matter of minutes.

So don’t read this as a change in policy, but rather as an initiative to remedy what DARPA sees as inefficiencies in the close air support chain. Right now, a radio communication (which may not come in completely clear) sets in motion a machine with a lot of moving parts, any one of which might make a mistake — commanders deciding the necessity and consequences of a strike, intelligence analysts examining footage of the battlefield, legal brass ensuring the strike is in line with the rules of engagement, etc.

DARPA wants to automate this process where possible and condense or remove parts of the process that slow down the close air support process. After all, we (hopefully) won’t be in Afghanistan forever, and on the battlefields of the future the ability to call in instantaneous robotic close air support could be a powerful and potentially devastating tool in America’s arsenal.

Source: Popsci

A range of highly virulent super viruses are created in the lab all the time, imagine what could be made or is being made behind the closed doors of the world’s superpowers, there is no doubt (in my mind) that viruses have been created that could strip the world of most of  its population in months to spite how counter productive it sounds to use something like that as a weapon.
Researchers have been creating one deadly virus after another in the laboratory, and the latest is ‘SHIV’, a hybrid between the human and monkey AIDS virus containing human interleukin genes that suppress immune response against viruses. At the same time, GM crops engineered with interleukin genes are being grown in open field trials. Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho ask whether the relevant biosafety Committees have taking these dangerous scenarios on board when they separately approve the laboratory experiments and the field trials.

In recently, researchers in Canberra Australia created a GM mouse-pox virus that killed all its victims simply by inserting into it a gene coding for interleukin 4, a protein belonging to the cytokine family that regulates thymus (T ) helper-cells in the immune response. This deadly virus also killed half of the mice that have been immunized against the mouse-pox virus [1] (See “Genetic engineering superviruses” ISIS News).

Unbeknownst to most of the world, researchers in Kyoto University, Japan, have created far worse. In order to investigate the role of cytokines in the progression of AIDS disease, they made ‘SHIV’ – a chimeric virus containing several genes from the human virus, HIV, in a basic frame of the monkey virus, SIV – which is capable of infecting both human and monkey cells. Into this SHIV, they insert various human cytokine genes in order to investigate how the virus replicate in cell cultures and in experimental macaque monkeys infected with the GM virus.

In the first experiment reported last year [2], the human gene for interleukin 6, IL-6, was inserted into a SHIV with a deletion in one of the genes from the HIV sequence in the chimeric virus. The deletion slowed the replication of the SHIV, but does not abolish it. IL-6 is known to be elevated in AIDS disease and to contribute to immunological abnormalities in HIV-infected patients. The resultant GM virus successfully replicated in a human thymus cell line as well as in monkey and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, with high levels of expression of IL-6. Surprisingly, the inserted gene was stable for at least four passages in the human thymus cell line, and it was suggested that the IL-6 gene in the GM virus might make the virus grow faster.

In a second report just published [3], the researchers inserted the human gene for interleukin 5, IL-5, into two SHIVs with deletions in different HIV genes. Again, the GM virus replicated stably in human thymus-derived cell lines as well as monkey peripheral blood mononuclear cells, with very high expression of IL-5, especially in one of the GM viruses.

The researchers stated, “The replication of both SHIVs having IL-5 appeared to be faster than that of the parental viruses without the IL-5 gene. These results show that co-expression of IL-5 stimulates SHIV replication in vitro. Thus, it is expected that expression of IL-5 will also have an effect on viral replication and pathogenicity in vivo.” (p.1051, italics ours)

By the admission of the researchers themselves, chimeric viruses such as the SHIV constructions with interleukins are potentially threatening to both humans and primates. Unintended release of these viruses through infection of human beings or escape of experimental monkeys injected with the virus should be matters of grave concern. These GM viruses can readily recombine with all kinds of viruses to give them at least one gene – the interleukin gene – that would make them more virulent.

Do the risks of producing SHIV chimeras with interleukins outweigh the potential benefits that may result from learning about the role of interleukin in facilitating virus multiplication? We do not think so. Such laboratory experiments should never have been approved on grounds of both safety and animal welfare.

In a parallel development, interleukins are being produced in GM crop plants. Field trials of a crop engineered with an interleukin gene had been carried out in the county where one of us reside. The approval has been given without considering the risks associated with pollution of surface and ground water by the protein following plant-wounding or breakage of rootlets. Birds and mammals readily consume sucking insects feeding on the test crop. Interleukin genes may spread by pollen to crop plants and weeds consumed by human beings, livestock as well as wild mammals. The interleukins consumed may lead to suppression of immune response and immune memory, thereby promoting the spread of viral diseases.

In addition, all kinds of viruses may pick up the interleukin gene from the GM crops, to become more lethal than nature’s worst.

As field trials and production sites for GM crops producing pharmaceuticals are not made public, the first recognition of their presence near a community may be devastating viral diseases spreading through human, domestic and wild animal populations.

Israeli navy commandos seized a cargo ship early Wednesday in the Mediterranean Sea that Israeli officials said was carrying rockets and ammunition bound for militants from Hezbollah.

Israel intercepted the ship, which was sailing under an Antiguan flag, near Cyprus, 100 miles west of the Israeli coast, and took it to the Ashdod harbor in southern Israel.

“As of now, what we know is that this was a smuggling attempt to arm Hezbollah with terrorist means against civilians,” Shaul Mofaz, a member of the Knesset and a former defense minister, told Israel Radio. “The intent was to send arms, mainly missiles and launchers, meant to strike civilian targets.”

News reports quoted the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, and other officials saying the ship had been carrying the arms from Iran to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, but officials released no evidence to back up those claims.

The capture of the arms comes hours before the United Nations General Assembly begins deliberations on the Goldstone report on the fighting in the Gaza Strip in January.

Col. Avital Leibovich of the Israel Defense Forces said the ship had been captured as part of the navy’s routine work to prevent arms smuggling.

Israel Radio reported that the navy had not used force in boarding the ship, the Franco St. Johns. Defense Minister Ehud Barak hailed the capture as “an additional success in the unending struggle against the attempts at arms smuggling and armament whose goal is to strengthen terror elements threatening the security of Israel.”

According to Israel Radio, Mr. Barak told the security cabinet Wednesday morning that the ship had been under surveillance since leaving its home port, which he did not identify. He said that the ship had also tried to evade capture.

The broadcaster said the elite Shayetet 13 naval commandos were the unit responsible for seizing the ship.

In January 2002, Israel captured the Karine A, a cargo ship laden with antitank rockets and light arms, which Israel said had been intended for the Palestinian Authority.

On Tuesday, Israel’s military intelligence chief said that Hamas in Gaza had recently test-fired a rocket that flew 37 miles into the sea. That range would put the Tel Aviv area under missile threat.