| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| America’s growing network of bases |
| 2003-09-11 |
| For a symbol of the way that America’s overseas presence has changed since September 11, 2001, look no further than the Peter J Ganci air base. Named after a New York fire chief killed when the World Trade Centre collapsed, this small but strategic base is in the central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan. This used to be no more than a smudge on the post-Soviet map until it was transformed by the war on terrorism. Ganci is a different beast from the sprawling American air bases of East Anglia, Germany, Italy or Japan, which resemble transplanted slices of small-town America. Instead it is essentially temporary, ready to be mothballed or closed should the threat to the United States shift elsewhere. For bases like Ganci, and dozens more that have sprung up since 2001, impermanence is the whole point. They are heavily guarded and discreet to avoid provoking often hostile local populations. There are no wives or children to be seen: only air force technicians, soldiers or special forces. The other constant is the presence of contractors from the private corporations that provide logistics to the US military. Some outsiders have watched the astonishing spread of US power across the globe and accused America of building a new empire. Ganci lies at the heart of what Pentagon planners call "the arc of instability" — a band of troubled, poor or failed states taking in the drug-producing areas of Latin America, much of Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and South-East Asia. Before September 11, few in Washington gave much thought to these unhappy regions. Since the attacks, the United States has moved with speed and stealth to secure air bases, landing rights, and military agreements across the arc. "Since September 11, 2001, the United States has built, upgraded or expanded military facilities in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, Bulgaria, Romania, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Djibouti, the Philippines and Diego Garcia," said Patrick Garrett, who tracks US military deployments for a Washington clearing house for strategic intelligence, globalsecurity.org. The United States is reportedly seeking bases in Mali and Algeria, and permission to refuel in Uganda and Senegal. There is also talk of bases in Singapore, Australia and even Vietnam. It certainly looks like a new empire. But empires imply a desire to hold and defend vast territories. The United States wants only to land, fight - then leave, if need be. Pentagon chiefs envisage a global network of "lily pads" or "warm bases", forward depots which would hold enough weaponry, vehicles and supplies to equip large rapid reaction forces, which would fly in at short notice through a handful of large air hubs, such as Ramstein in Germany. Other equipment would be kept in floating warehouses at sea. Strike forces would head for "virtual bases", airfields in any of a wide range of countries to have granted the United States emergency access rights. So, far from entangling the United States in imperial alliances, the new doctrine is instead born of distrust, and America’s fears of being let down by even its oldest allies, argues Celeste Johnson Ward, a fellow of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. In the long term, the Pentagon’s dreams are more radical still. Its research arm recently solicited bids for a new breed of space-based unmanned hypersonic bombers, capable of taking off from American soil and striking targets on the far side of the globe within two hours, without waiting for permission to use bases, or for overflight rights. The ultimate aim is to leave America’s enemies in fear of a strike from a clear blue sky at any second or, in the Pentagon’s words, "to hold adversary vital interests at risk at all times". |
| Posted by:Yosemite Sam |
| #12 Alaska Paul I don't think it is really a standard welding procedure but TAG (A for active) would better describe the beast. Dorf |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-11 8:52:39 PM |
| #11 "Footfall" had some more information about such things as "flying crowbars" and other such instruments of space-based warfare. The ending was a bit far-fetched, but the overall read was excellent. I always like "hard-science" fiction because it DOES have that level of detail. We have the capacity today to put most of the "fiction" in science fiction into the trash bin. All we need is the national resolve. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-11 3:43:32 PM |
| #10 Maybe that's why Bush backed out of that missle treaty? I know there was one that prohibited us or the Soviets from using space-based weaponry. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-9-11 3:18:22 PM |
| #9 Area 51 freaks: Leave the Groom Lake chaps alone to do their work and GTFOOTW! ;) |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-9-11 2:50:46 PM |
| #8 Dreamland"Nelis Airforce Base,Nevada. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-9-11 2:31:49 PM |
| #7 "space-based tungsten rods that would be satellite-guided and would be able to destroy hardened underground bunkers" Everything old is new again, Project Thor: THOR: Thor Odinson was the Norse God of Thunder. One of his missions was vengeance against those who harmed the Aesir, as well as recovery of any property stolen from them. The first practical Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) deployed by the United States was code named "Thor". That missile has long been retired from the inventory. In 1964 Dr. Jerry Pournelle described a potential weapons system concept consisting of a guided orbiting element with terminal guidance. In 1975 he published a new and more complete description of the system that could have been deployed in the mid-1980's. The completion of the GPS (Global Positioning System) satellite system eliminated one of the largest expense requirements for deploying Thor. The basic weapon system consists of an orbiting element some 20 to 40 feet long. It requires a GPS receiver to locate itself; a means of taking it out of orbit; an atmospheric guidance system, such as a means of changing its center of gravity (moving weights, small fins, etc.), and a communication system to give it a target and activate the system. No warhead is wanted or needed. Thor will impact a target area at about 12,000 feet per second; that is sufficient kinetic energy to destroy most hard targets, with minimum collateral damage and of course no fall-out. Achievable accuracy has been estimated at ten to twenty feet CEP. And yes, it's that Jerry Pournelle. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-9-11 2:18:15 PM |
| #6 From TIG Welding Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) is frequently referred to as TIG welding. TIG welding is a commonly used high quality welding process. TIG welding has become a popular choice of welding processes when high quality, precision welding is required. In TIG welding an arc is formed between a nonconsumable tungsten electrode and the metal being welded. Gas is fed through the torch to shield the electrode and molten weld pool. If filler wire is used, it is added to the weld pool separately. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-9-11 2:04:44 PM |
| #5 What's a TIG weld? |
| Posted by: Katz 2003-9-11 1:48:49 PM |
| #4 More proof that 19 hijackers really can have a major influence on world events, just not in the way they intended. "...or become a TIG weld!" -- Thanks, AP, my first laugh of the day. But why waste good tungsten -- we already have ballistic nukes, and they'll handle a 40 sq. mile "tribal area" better than any tungsten rods. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-9-11 1:46:21 PM |
| #3 Bomb-a-rama---I like the tungsten rods also. I can see it now: We have a load of Wolfram Bombs (W-bombs) aimed at your bunker. Surrender now or become a TIG weld! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-9-11 1:27:48 PM |
| #2 What really caught my imagination was the idea floated about space-based tungsten rods that would be satellite-guided and would be able to destroy hardened underground bunkers. Now THAT would be a strike out of a clear blue sky, and with probably no warning whatsoever. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-11 1:07:42 PM |
| #1 Very Cool, This is what Dick Gephardt calls a miserable failure. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-9-11 12:59:41 PM |