All that triggers interest in me to know more!

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Raja Ramanna

MUMBAI: Raja Ramanna, the scientist who pioneered India’s drive to become a nuclear power, died yesterday here at age 79.
Ramanna supervised India’s first nuclear test in the Pokhran desert in the western state of Rajasthan in 1974. Handpicked by Homi Bhabha, the founder of India’s nuclear programme, Ramanna established an international name through his academic work on nuclear fission.

Sun foresees global pool of computing power
By Stephen Shankland,
CNET News.com
Wednesday, September 22 2004 10:25 AM

Sun Microsystems on Tuesday took what it says are early steps toward a future in which computing power is sold as a commodity like electricity.
At a Sun media event in New York, Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Schwartz unveiled a service by which customers can run some computing jobs on Sun machines for a cost of US$1 per processor per hour.
So far, the technology is limited in scope, but Sun hopes that it eventually will blossom so that organizations such as stock exchanges with extra processing power can sell it back to a computing grid in the same manner that homes with solar panels can sell power back to the electrical power grid.
"If the exchanges are dormant at night, they can feed capacity back to the network," Schwartz said. He cautioned that such a vision requires security technology to protect computing tasks from tampering.
But such challenges will be solved, and Sun hopes to profit by running computers others can use.
"How big could the market be for this service? Add up the total number of hours used by all computer users on the planet," Schwartz said. "In the long run, all computing will be done this way."
Sun's not alone in having a vision of utility computing. Indeed, IBM has been working on grid protocols for years, Hewlett-Packard is building grid support into all its products, and both already operate complicated data centers for customers.
But Sun, punished by three years of market share losses and shrinking revenues, could claim some success if its plan just makes it relevant again in customer planning, some say.
"The notion is to make...customers and competitors stand back and say, 'What do you have to offer?'" said IDC analyst Vernon Turner. "Right now, this is a starting block for them. They're trying to get themselves back into the discussion."
Sun's initial service is geared for a limited set of high-performance computing jobs, such as detailing animated movie frames, analyzing investment portfolios or extracting oil field maps from seismic experiment data--all jobs that can run on an isolated set of computers. IBM and Hewlett-Packard already offer such services, though with different pricing plans.
Schwartz believes that general-purpose business computing tasks will come later, though the speed of light and other networking lags mean that geography hobbles many transaction-processing tasks that demand fast responses. "Over time, we'll look at the technology hurdles necessary to get to a true service grid," he said.
In this vision, Sun expects to run data centers packed with computers, but not generally to sell the computing power to customers. "We're looking at partners to deliver retail services to customers," he said.
Sun will rely on those partners for expertise. For example, Sun already has a partnership with SchlumbergerSema, which sells access to Sun equipment to customers in energy, finance, telecommunications and government customers.
In coming weeks, the company plans to offer more sophisticated--and probably more expensive--services that include partners with specific expertise. Partners will include CGI Group, Atos Origin and Electronic Data Systems, Sun said.

http://asia.cnet.com/my/0,39002192,39194626,00.htm

September 19, 2004 -- Google, $1.67 billion richer from its August initial public offering, is spending its money poaching the brightest minds from arch-rival Microsoft and other tech giants.
Based on the half-dozen hires in recent weeks, Google appears to be planning to launch its own Web browser and other software products to challenge Microsoft.

Google has wooed Joshua Block, one of the main developers of the Internet programming language Java, from Sun Microsystems.

The company also hired four people who worked on Microsoft's Web browser, Internet Explorer, and later founded their own company. One of them, Adam Bosworth, is credited with being a driving force not only behind IE, but Microsoft's database-management program, Access.

Most recently, Google grabbed Joe Beda, the lead developer on Avalon, Microsoft's code name for the user interface that will part of the next version of Windows, called Longhorn.

Beda even keeps an online diary of what it's like to be a "Noogler," as new Google employees are called. He won't reveal what he's working on but mentions that each Noogler is given a hat with a propeller on the top.

"Google is a magnetic pull for smart technology people," said Gary Stein, an analyst with Jupiter Research. "They're really trying to broaden their tech base. This is all about putting smart kids in a Google sandbox."



Neither Google nor the employees will comment on the hiring spree, but analysts note that the talent allows the company to challenge Microsoft on its own turf.

Stein said Google could — and probably is — working on almost everything. He believes the company will launch a product that searches for online music, because it already has a program that trolls the Web for images.

Other blogs and analysts believe Google is working on an instant-messaging program and a Web browser to challenge Internet Explorer.

The browser strategy is supported by other clues as well. Last month, Google hosted Mozilla Developer Day on its campus, a gathering of programmers that work together to build sequels to the re-named Netscape browser. Mozilla, which is "open source" and available to anyone, could be shaped to Google's specifications and be embedded with Google search, Gmail free e-mail and other Google applications.

"I'm willing to bet that somewhere in the Google computer system are the seeds of a browser," Stein said.

The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech in 1995.

The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that costs only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space and almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a browser and access all their programs and data there.

The concept floundered, but programmers note that Google could easily pick up the ball. Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100 megabytes of storage space on a remote network — providing consumers a virtual hard drive.

"I think a similar thing [to the got network computer] is developing in a more organic way now," said Jason Kottke, a New York-based Web developer who follows Google's moves. "People are ready for it. Instead of most of your interaction happening with Windows or Mac, you're spending a lot of time with Google-built interfaces."

On his blog, new Google employee Bosworth describes a "Web services" world where a project could be checked and updated from any terminal on the road — while other employees can make changes from other places.

Bosworth wouldn't reveal exactly what he's up to at Google, except to say the software he's developing is for "mere mortals. In fact, my Mom."

For as much as outsiders are speculating about Google's next product, so employees inside the company are doing the same thing, Stein said.

"Google's strategy is to throw a handful of seeds and to see what grows," he said.

This article describes currently unsolved problems This is a list of lists of unsolved problems in various subjects:

Unsolved problems in mathematics
Unsolved problems in physics
Unsolved problems in chemistry
Unsolved problems in biology
Unsolved problems in economics
Unsolved problems in governance
Unsolved problems in cognitive science
Unsolved problems in neuroscience
Unsolved problems in computer science
Unsolved problems in software engineering

Mathematics is commonly defined as the study of patterns of structure, change, and space; more informally, one might say it is the study of 'figures and numbers'. In the formalist view, it is the investigation of axiomatically defined abstract structures using logic and mathematical notation; other views are described in Philosophy of mathematics. Mathematics might be seen as a simple extension of spoken and written languages, with an extremely precisely defined vocabulary and grammar, for the purpose of describing and exploring physical and conceptual relationships.

The seven Millennium Prize Problems

The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) is a private, non-profit foundation, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and dedicated to increasing and disseminating mathematical knowledge. It gives out various awards and sponsorships to promising mathematicians. The institute was founded in 1998 by businessman Landon T. Clay, who financed it, and Harvard mathematician Arthur Jaffe.


The Millennium Prize problems
Clay Mathematics Institute The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) is a private, non-profit foundation, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and dedicated to increasing and disseminating mathematical knowledge. It gives out various awards and sponsorships to promising mathematicians. The institute was founded in 1998 by businessman Landon T. Clay, who financed it, and Harvard mathematician Arthur Jaffe.

The Millennium Prize problems

1) P versus NP
Computational complexity theory is part of the theory of computation dealing with the resources required during computation to solve a given problem. The most common resources are time (how many steps does it take to solve a problem) and space (how much memory does it take to solve a problem).
In this theory, the class P consists of all those decision problems that can be solved on a deterministic sequential machine in an amount of time that is polynomial in the size of the input; the class

2) The Hodge Conjecture
The Hodge conjecture is a major unsolved problem of algebraic geometry. It is a conjectural description of the link between the algebraic topology of a non-singular complex algebraic variety, and its geometry as captured by polynomial equations that define sub-varieties. It arose as a result of the work of W. V. D. Hodge, who between 1930 and 1940 enriched the description of De Rham cohomology to include extra structure which is present in the case of algebraic varieties (though not restricted to that case).

3) The Poincaré Conjecture
The Poincaré conjecture is widely considered the most important unsolved problem in topology. It was first formulated by Henri Poincaré in 1904. In 2000 the Clay Mathematics Institute selected the Poincaré conjecture as one of seven Millennium Prize Problems and offered a $1,000,000 prize for its solution. The conjecture states:
Every simply connected closed (i.e. compact and without boundary) 3-manifold is homeomorphic to a 3-sphere.

4) The Riemann Hypothesis
The Riemann hypothesis, first formulated by Bernhard Riemann in 1859, is a conjecture about the distribution of the zeros of Riemann's zeta function ζ(s). It is one of the most important open problems of contemporary mathematics; a $1,000,000 prize has been offered by the Clay Mathematics Institute for a proof. In June 2004, Louis De Branges de Bourcia claimed to have proved the Riemann hypothesis but this has not yet been confirmed (see below). Most mathematicians believe the Riemann hypothesis to be true. (J. E. Littlewood and Atle Selberg have been reported as skeptical.)

5) Yang-Mills Existence and Mass Gap

6) Navier-Stokes Existence and Smoothness In fluid dynamics, the Navier-Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes are a set of nonlinear partial differential equations that describe the flow of fluids such as liquids and gases. For example: they model weather or the movement of air in the atmosphere, ocean currents, water flow in a pipe, as well as many other fluid flow phenomena.

Momentum Equation in 3 dimensions (assuming and are constant:

7) The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture
In mathematics, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture relates the rank of the abelian group of points over a number field of an elliptic curve E to the order of zero of the associated L-function L(E,s) at s = 1. It has been proved only in special cases (2004).


Background In 1922 Louis Mordell proved that the group of rational points on an elliptic curve has a finite basis. This means that for any elliptic curve there is a finite sub-set of the rational points on the curve from which all other rational points may be generated.
..... Click the link for more information.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20unsolved%20mathematical%20problems

http://www.claymath.org/millennium/
prize.problems@claymath.org

http://www.simonsingh.net/Mathematics_Links.html

http://www.ufoarea.com/aas_top_civilizations.html
by: David Hatcher Childress
Source: Atlantis Ring Issue Number 1

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/10spec2.htm
The Rediff Special/Amar V Batra
June 10, 2004

The media reported on June 5, the dismissal by the President of retired Major Rabinder Singh, a joint secretary at the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, under Article 311(2) (c) of the Constitution. This Article enables the President to dismiss any officer of an all-India service without holding a formal departmental enquiry against him if such an enquiry is considered not to be in the national interest. There is no provision for a judicial review of the decision.

According to media reports, Rabinder Singh, who held charge of the South-East Asia portfolio, has been absconding from his duties for nearly three weeks and is suspected to have fled abroad, most probably to the US, after he came under suspicion of working for US intelligence. It is said the suspicion arose following the recovery of photocopies of some classified documents from his briefcase during a check by RAW security staff as he was leaving office.

His dismissal under a special provision of the Constitution would seem to have been taken as he was no longer available for a formal enquiry into his alleged act of espionage for a foreign power. The dismissal order is meant more to deter similar acts of espionage by other officers of the intelligence agencies than to repair the damage caused by him to the organisation and the nation.

Whatever damage he might have caused cannot be set right. One can only prevent a recurrence of such incidents if one draws the right lessons from the case and tightens the loopholes in the internal security system at RAW, which enabled Rabinder Singh to betray the secrets of the organisation to a foreign agency.

Rabinder Singh is a clean-shaven Sikh, who came on deputation to RAW from the army in the 1980s. He held the rank of major at that time. He did not go back to the army on completion of his deputation. He gave up his lien in the army and chose to be permanently absorbed in RAW as a member of its Research and Analysis Service.

Throughout his career, he was considered by many of his peers as an average officer. He was poor as an intelligence analyst, but somewhat good as a field operative.

During his career, he worked as head of the RAW office in Amritsar and subsequently as a field operative in West Asia and West Europe. In Amritsar, his principal task was the collection of trans-border HUMINT (human intelligence) about the Pakistani military and about the training of Sikh terrorists by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in Pakistani territory. In West Asia, his task was monitoring the activities of terrorist groups there. In West Europe he focused on the activities of Sikh terrorist elements operating there.

In counter-intelligence, which is the technique of preventing infiltration by moles of foreign intelligence agencies, it is often difiicult to get provable evidence. One has, therefore, to act on suspicion. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is helpful in such cases. Foreign intelligence agencies have a provision in their service rules called the 'golden handshake.' Under this, they can ease out of the organisation incapable or unreliable or suspicious officers by persuading them to quit in return for handsome monetary compensation. They use this provision quite often to weed out undesirable elements without getting involved in protracted and controversial litigation.
When RAW was formed in September 1968, R N Kao, its founder, persuaded then prime minister Indira Gandhi to agree to the inclusion of a 'golden handshake' provision in its service rules. It is not clear as to why RAW did not act against Rabinder Singh under the 'golden handshake' provision or Article 311 (2) earlier than it did since his track record was reportedly not impressive.

It is said there was a question mark over his reliability since the early 1990s when an operation he began for the collection of intelligence about US government activities in South Asia through a sister of his, who was employed in a sensitive US agency with links to the CIA, was found to have been fishy.

Initially, some good documents came out of this operation, but subsequently, there were grounds for suspicion that the CIA might be using his sister to plant disinformation on the Government of India through him. One such piece of disinformation, which they allegedly tried to feed through this channel in the late 1980s, was that the US embassy in New Delhi had reported to the State Department that the then Chief of the Army Staff was planning a coup against Rajiv Gandhi.

This is the third detected instance of the penetration of the Indian intelligence by the CIA.
In the first instance detected in 1986-1987, a senior RAW officer of the rank of director (one rank below joint secretary) belonging to the IPS, posted in Chennai for handling sensitive Sri Lanka operations, was allegedly found to have been working for the CIA.

During a random surveillance of a suspected CIA officer posted in the US consulate in Chennai, the RAW officer was allegedly discovered to have clandestine contact with the CIA officer and going for morning jogs with him.

After collecting video-recordings of a series of such clandestine meetings, a joint counter-intelligence team of the Intelligence Bureau and RAW confronted him with the evidence. He reportedly broke down and made a clean breast of it. He was dismissed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and jailed in Tihar for a year to serve as a deterrent example to others.

The second instance detected in 1995-1996 related to a senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau belonging to the IPS, who held a rank equivalent to that of an additional secretary, one level below secretary. He might have risen to be the head of the organisation within a few months if his contacts with the CIA had not been detected. He had served for some years in the ministry of external affairs. He was responsible for internal security and counter-intelligence in the MEA and used to interact with a large number of foreign intelligence officers posted in their diplomatic missions in New Delhi. He also developed social relationship with them.

After reverting to the IB at the end of his MEA tenure, he reportedly became the head of its counter-intelligence division and was responsible for maintaining a surveillance of all foreign intelligence officers based in New Delhi in order to prevent any attempts by them to penetrate the IB and other government departments.

It was alleged that unauthorisedly and without the knowledge of the Director, Intelligence Bureau, he continued to maintain his personal and social relationships with the foreign intelligence officers, which he had built up in the MEA.

Accidentally, the IB's counter-intelligence division reportedly found that a woman CIA officer posted in the US embassy was in contact with government servants and others on a mobile telephone, allegedly registered in the name of their boss, the suspect IB officer. Without alerting him, they brought this to the notice of the director, IB.

A joint counter-intelligence team of the IB and RAW then kept him under surveillance, collected video-recordings of his clandestine meetings with the CIA officer and then confronted him with the evidence.He reportedly broke down and admitted his contacts with her.
It was stated that during the investigation it was found that apart from facilitating her operational work by hiring a mobile in his name and giving it to her, he had not betrayed any sensitive secrets. He was reportedly sent on premature retirement and no further action was taken.

There were two unsuccessful attempts by the CIA to penetrate Indian intelligence.
In the first instance which took place in the 1980s, a director-level non-IPS RAW officer posted in a West European country, came under pressure from the CIA to work for it. He immediately alerted RAW about it. He was withdrawn and the CIA's plans were thwarted.

In the second instance, in the early 1990s, a CIA officer posted at the US embassy in New Delhi tried to recruit an IB officer, who immediately reported it to his superiors. They laid a trap for the CIA officer, collected evidence of his misdeeds and ordered him to leave the country.
Since 1947, India has had a long history of intelligence co-operation relationship with the intelligence agencies of the US and other Western countries as well as with those of the erstwhile USSR, Russia and other East European countries. Underlying all such relationships is an unwritten gentlemen's agreement that the agencies would not take advantage of this relationship to penetrate each other.

Most intelligence agencies of the world try to observe this, but not the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are aggressive and do not care for any dos and don'ts in intelligence cooperation relationships. They do not hesitate to clandestinely penetrate their sister agencies with which they have an official relationship if they get an opportunity to do so.
The IB has the over-all responsibility for counter-intelligence. It is responsible for the pevention of penetration of its own set-up as well as of other government departments.

RAW has a counter intelligence and security division, whose responsibility is limited to maintaining internal security and preventing the penetration of the organisation. It performs the security role by keeping a tab on the use of photo-copying machines, scanners, computers with external connections etc, by random door checking of the contents of the briefcases of staff and other methods. It performs the counter intelligence task by monitoring the lifestyles and work habits of its staff and their contacts with outsiders. It has no capability for external surveillance for which it has to depend on the IB's counter intelligence division.

It is possible, but not certain that it was the IB's counter intelligence division which first rang the alarm bells about Rabinder Singh after noticing a clandestine meeting of his with a suspect CIA officer. If this was not so and if it was RAW, which detected his contacts, it is not known whether it immediately alerted the IB and sought its cooperation in the further investigation as all government departments are expected to do.

In all intelligence agencies of the world, the head of the counter intelligence division is a hated officer in the organisation because he is perceived as spying on his colleagues and friends. James Angleton, head of the CIA's counter intelligence division during the initial Cold War years, became a detested man because of his aggressive investigative methods and has been spending his sunset years with very few friends from amongst retired intelligence officers. Competent intelligence officers avoid heading the counter intelligence division since they find spying on their colleagues and friends distasteful.

In 1980, M D Dittia, a police officer of the Delhi cadre, who headed the counter intelligence division at RAW, was gheraoed by lower and middle-level staff who accused him of harassing and humiliating them under the pretext of counter intelligence. They went on strike demanding, inter alia, the abolition of the counter intelligence division. The late N F Suntook, then the chief of RAW, rejected their demands, had the ring-leaders of the strike dismissed under Article 311 (2), got those who instigated the gherao arrested and prosecuted and persuaded Indira Gandhi to have legislation enacted banning strikes in RAW.

No counter intelligence division can be effective without the cooperation of the colleagues and friends of a suspect mole, who have to alert the division if they notice anything suspicious. Many officers find this distasteful and avoid communicating their suspicions to the counter intelligence division due to an impression that 'gentlemen do not rat on their colleagues and friends.'
During the first Clinton administration, Aldrich Ames, a well-placed mole of Soviet and Russian intelligence, was detected by the CIA. He was responsible for the deaths of many CIA moles in Moscow, whose identities he had revealed to the Soviet and Russian intelligence services. During the investigation, it was discovered that he was an alcoholic, that he and his wife were given to expensive living, that he was always in heavy debt and that he was in the habit of visiting the Russian embassy in Washington DC, without the knowledge of his superiors.

A Congressional enquiry found that over a dozen colleagues of his were aware of all these, but refrained from alerting the CIA director or the head of its counter intelligence division about it. They thought that would amount to carrying tales about a colleague and friend, which, in their view, was just not done.

Such an attitude has to change if counter intelligence has to be effective and penetration by foreign agencies has to be prevented.

While collecting intelligence about foreign adversaries and terrorists is a highly exciting and glamorous job, which immediately attracts the attention and commendation of organisational and political superiors, collecting intelligence about one's own colleagues and friends can be a terribly boring and to many, distasteful and thankless job, which does not bring the officer to the good notice of his or her superiors. Foreign intelligence agencies take advantage of this mindset in their efforts at successful penetration.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/24inter.htm
The Rediff Interview/Richard M Bennett
March 23, 2003

Widely recognized as an expert in global intelligence, security, terrorism and defence matters, Richard M Bennett is an intelligence and military analyst since 1966.

He founded AFI Research, one of the leading providers of expert information for the world media in 1971. A member of the world's oldest and most prestigious military research centre, the Royal United Services Institute for Strategic Studies situated in London, he edits the internationally acclaimed AFI Intelligence Briefing.

From a military and naval family, with his great grandfather having fought in the Crimean War, another grandfather in the Boer War and father in the 1st Royal Dragoons Cavalry Regiment in India, Bennett now lives near the South Bevan coast in the United Kingdom.

In an email interview to Senior Editor Sheela Bhatt, he said the fear the United States must have is that the Iraqi armed forces could turn Saddam Hussein's eventual overthrow into the final act of a martyred hero for a future Arab revolution.

What is the United States' strategic plan behind the war against Iraq? Is it the control of Iraq's oil wells or to change the regime and region?
I firmly believe this is the first obvious example of a new and far more interventionist policy by the United States and one that will bring fundamental changes not only to the Middle East but elsewhere.

The United States appears to believe that unless it projects its power and influence worldwide, its long term interests and security will eventually be seriously threatened. Gaining a geo-strategic position of military dominance in an oil rich region and one that is also seen as the home ground of virulently anti-American Islamic terrorism can only benefit Washington's long term ambitions.

Since the US claims this is a war against terrorism what tangible evidence does it have to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and other acts of terrorism against the West?
Nothing that would stand up to close scrutiny by international law officers or probably by intelligence analysts. Iraq has long been a Westernized and largely secular bulwark against the fundamentalist Islamic movement. Washington's support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980-1988 war against Iran confirms that position.

However, the charge of supporting terrorism by Palestinian groups against Israel has proved a useful tool to further blacken the Iraqi dictator's reputation. If the United States wishes to use the same tactic during the build-up to any confrontation with Libya, Syria or Iran then they would have a far greater basis in fact to work on.

Do you agree with the stereotypes of George Bush and Saddam Hussein: one an arrogant president and the other a despotic ruler?
No. For while there are indeed invariably some elements of truth in all stereotypes, both men are far more complex. Bush often appears of only limited intellect through his previous and very obvious lack of knowledge of current affairs and his rather stiff and inarticulate speech. However, George W Bush won the presidency of the world's only superpower one way or another and has built around him a fearsome team of highly motivated and extremely tough advisers with robust political and military views on the international situation.
Saddam, despite the propaganda, cannot have survived for a quarter of a century on fear alone. He does encourage great loyalty among many in Iraq just as he creates enormous fear and loathing amongst others. He has proved himself a brave, astute and endlessly adaptable survivor. Besides his obvious cruelty, his one major weakness has been an inability to judge the reactions and actions of the international community correctly. That ultimately is the main cause for his downfall and the invasion of Iraq.

Isn't it true that Iraq is a moderate Islamic regime in the Gulf? Wouldn't destabilising it fan the flames of terrorism across a larger swathe in the region?
I have always seen Iraq as playing an important role in the Middle East and as potentially one of the West's most important friends in the region. The fall of Iraq may not in itself directly lead to an upsurge in terrorism, but the military power displayed by the United States and the invasion and to many, the humiliating occupation of a historically important sovereign Arab/Muslim nation most definitely will.

What is the immediate threat to the West from this war against Iraq? Which are the vulnerable nations? What is the fallout they can anticipate?
The immediate threats are the potential for political destabilisation of pro-Western regimes; the fear amongst many Arab countries of what many see as a Christian-Zionist 'crusade' against them and indeed the disquiet over Turkey's intentions. Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States must be seen as the first under threat if there is a serious Islamic backlash.

There is a view that the first shots in World War III were fired on 9/11 and the latest action is a continuation of the war. Where will it end? And how?
To a very large extent the high hopes that followed the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War have been cruelly dashed by the conflicts in Somalia, Colombia, the Balkans, in the Israeli-occupied territories, Afghanistan and now Iraq.

Whether we can see 9/11 as the opening shots of a Third World War is doubtful, it may, however, be seen as a defining moment in a process that began towards the end of the Cold War with the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.

In truth there is a new war that involves much, if not all of the world in conflict. However unlike 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 there are no clear lines or obvious battlefields. Nor are we likely to see it won or lost quickly. Indeed (US Secretary of Defence) Donald Rumsfeld is reported as saying that the war on terrorism may last fifty years.

Sadly, the 21st century is likely to be a re-run of the last 100 years, the proving ground for a whole new and extremely dangerous way of fighting.

Will the war be short and intense or will it be a long and protracted affair?
A war with Iraq is unlikely to last more than a few weeks at most if the United States is prepared to use all the weapons it has available in its armoury. There has probably never been a more unequal conflict, at least on paper, in history.

However, the fear the United States must have is that the Iraqi armed forces put up a better than expected resistance and turn Saddam Hussein's eventual overthrow into the final act of that of a martyred hero for a future Arab revolution.

Which are the new trends expected to be added in the well-developed science of war?
High technology has finally achieved near total dominance on the modern battlefield. From space-based surveillance and intelligence systems; stealth bombers; advanced electronic warfare; communications monitoring and interception; highly effective modern weapon systems; ground-penetration bombs to destroy bunkers; highly accurate GPS and laser-guided bombs; cruise missiles and much more give the United States an overwhelming military advantage.

Just as important has been the giant strides taken in profiling the 'enemy' to discover his weak points; psy-war; disinformation and the clever use of the news media to spread propaganda to the opposition. Improved or original tactics have revolutionised military thinking; war is now all about speed, power and doing the unexpected.

Can the Iraqis do a Vietnam in Baghdad?
The simple answer is no and particularly if the United States and Britain are prepared to accept a growing number of Iraqi civilian casualties.

How do you rate the coverage of war by the US and British media? Do they really know the facts and ground realities in a war zone? Are they independent?
The United States and Britain have very effectively learnt the lessons of Vietnam, the Falklands and even the first Gulf War. With few very notable exemptions the world's news media are now just the 'creature of the military.' Most reporters have no military experience, cannot make an expert judgment of their own and rely on press handouts or unattributable briefings. No doubt many journalists are deeply unhappy and disturbed by the virtual elimination of genuine war reporting, but if they want to keep their press accreditation and perhaps even their well paid jobs, there is little they can do about it.

How do you analyse the Islamic nations that have registered feeble and meek protests against the US action?
Because of the deep fracture lines of the region's history, the hostility of the different religious groupings and the political enmity between Arab nations, it has proved relatively easy for first Britain and now the USA to divide and if not conquer, then certainly control the Middle East.
Matters of aid, of economic and military stability and the fear of extremist anti-Weston religious movements has proved a stumbling block to the creation of any form of genuine pan-Arab power block. Washington would never admit it publicly, but privately they dismiss the significance of the Arab and much of the wider Muslim world as a military or political threat and see them as only being capable of committing acts of terrorism.

Will the majority of Iraqis rejoice like the Afghans after the fall of the Taliban?
In the short term who argues with a conquering army? Of course, most Iraqis will be pleased to see the end of both Saddam Hussein and the US bombing raids. But the Iraqis are a proud people who will undoubtedly begin to resent the occupation of their country by the United States or even the United Nations if it is prolonged for more than six months or so.
Half its population are Shias and Iran will undoubtedly be tempted to stir up trouble amongst its co-religionists to hasten America's withdrawal. While in the north, Turkey's movement of forces into Northern Iraq to pre-empt any possible establishment of a Kurdish Republic bodes ill for the future.

What's America's calculation in risking its image by going to war?
Arrogance; belief in the superiority of the American way of life; intolerance of opposition and the intention to establish a worldwide Pax Americana have all been put forward as explanations. However, this is really all about the ability of a modern high-tech armed forces to actually carry out the wishes of a government. War is now just another arm of diplomacy. The United States will only care about Muslim opinion, when that opinion represents a viable military and political community.

Can you give us an idea of the damage, destruction and deaths this war will inflict on Iraq and its people? Do you expect it to spread?
The destruction wrought on Iraq's military, intelligence and political infrastructure is devastating. Despite the appearance of total warfare, the advance in weaponry has succeeding in providing the military command with an ability to target very accurately and this, with few unfortunate exceptions, should ensure that the number of civilian casualties is kept thankfully to a minimum. This must be taken in the context that there will be no use of chemical or biological warfare agents by Iraq.

What will the new emerging world order be after the war?
The military dominance of the United States will be near total for the foreseeable future. However, the most defining effect will be to encourage proliferation of missile, nuclear, chemical and biological technology.

The simple lesson to be learnt by Syria, Iran, North Korea and others from the US assault on Iraq is that had Saddam Hussein had an advanced strategic capability, Washington would in all probability not have initiated war.

I think it is fair to say the world may live to bitterly regret a war that has been conducted without the unanimous support of the United Nations and as a unilateral pre-emptive strike.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/19swadas.htm
Swapan Dasgupta
July 19, 2004

It has been a terrible summer for espionage. In the US, a Senate Intelligence Committee report flayed the CIA for the 'mischaracterization of intelligence,' for promoting 'groupthink' and for 'poor management.'

These problems, said the Senators unhelpfully, 'will not be solved by additional funding and personnel.' In the UK, an inquiry headed by former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler held the MI6 guilty of assessing Saddam Hussein's arsenal with the 'outer limits of intelligence available.' The intelligence supplied to the British government, suggested Butler, was 'insufficiently robust' to suggest that Iraq had violated UN resolutions. More to the point, Butler berated MI6 for getting directly involved in the presentation of the controversial Iraq dossier which the British government used to justify its participation in the Iraq war.

What is significant about these reports is not merely their political implications but the fact that, for the first time in living memory, the intelligence agencies have been subjected to a semblance of public scrutiny. A grey area of national security and foreign policy which was deemed strictly out of bounds has been brought into the arena of public debate, without compromising operational details. For those concerned with the quality of democracy, it is a great leap forward.
It is tragic that the winds of accountability have not yet been felt in India. Since the Kargil conflict of 1999, the performance of the intelligence agencies have been a cause of some concern. The dismay felt at the underlying intelligence failure to anticipate the audacious incursions in Kargil have been compounded by a recent scandal over the defection of RAW operative Rabinder Singh. Singh is said to have fled the country via Nepal using an American passport.
Why is the US spying on India?

If Kargil highlighted the professional shortcomings of intelligence inputs, Singh's defection has brought into focus the porous underbelly of RAW and the slackness of its activities. A recent sweep of the RAW headquarters in Delhi, for example, revealed the existence of bugging devices in two operational rooms and the office of the RAW chief.

It is not that the establishment doesn't recognise the inadequacies. Following the revelations of intelligence failure in the K Subrahmanyam Committee report on the Kargil conflict, the NDA government appointed a task force headed by former RAW chief Girish Chandra Saxena to recommend reforms. Saxena's report was further examined by a Group of Ministers headed by then deputy prime minister L K Advani which made concrete recommendations in 2001. Although the task force report and the GoM recommendations were, predictably, not made public, it is understood that the reform of Indian intelligence centred on personnel, internal restructuring and coordination.

It speaks volumes for the warped priorities of the political class that hardly anything of the proposed changes were put into effect. The political grapevine of Delhi suggests that at least one senior functionary in the NDA government used RAW as his personal fiefdom. In true bureaucratic style, the furore over Singh's defection has led to yet another committee headed by the Cabinet secretary. Now that the UPA government has a full-time national security adviser and another adviser specialising in internal security, there is greater optimism that the intelligence agencies will be overhauled with an eye to better results.

At the heart of the problem is the quality of personnel, an issue that was dealt with in detail by Saxena's task force. To put it bluntly, RAW lacks the requisite calibre of people to collect, collate and assess intelligence. The understanding of foreign societies and governments require a degree of professional competence, including language skills, that don't seem to be available.
The CIA and MI6 have talent-spotters at the best universities; RAW either diverts people from the police or induct relatives of serving officials. During the Kargil conflict, Indian intelligence didn't have the people to decipher intercepts in Pushto. They had to finally round up some Afghan refugees to help out. Recently, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi called for the establishment of a separate intelligence service. Unfortunately, his suggestion has not been treated with the seriousness it warrants.

The government expends a great deal of resources in posting RAW officers, either openly or undercover, in important overseas postings. In addition, RAW has access to slush funds for servicing agents on the ground. It is not desirable that the details of these operations should be made public. Yet, there is a need for some semblance of internal accountability and assessment of performance. There is no evidence to suggest that this exercise is being routinely carried out.
It is necessary, for example, to review the quality of human intelligence from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Myanmar and China. Has the quality of 'humint' (human intelligence) taken a nosedive because it is often more convenient to depend on satellite imagery and other intercepts? Yet, as is well recognised, no intelligence assessment is complete without a large humint input.

Second, Indian intelligence inputs suffer from groupthink. It is often assumed, not incorrectly, that ministers should be fed what is expedient and not what is necessarily accurate. If tell-tale evidence of Pakistani designs in Kargil was glossed over, it is because intelligence chiefs imagined it was their job to make the Lahore agreement work. In the aftermath of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's peace initiative in October 2003, there was considerable confusion in the intelligence services over the wisdom of bringing discordant trends to the Cabinet's notice.

The underlying politicisation of the intelligence agencies is a curse. Only too often, RAW and IB have been used for explicitly political projects, particularly in Kashmir and the north-east. There is an important distinction between using intelligence inputs for decision-making and using intelligence agencies for political engagement. Unfortunately, our politicians haven't kept the two separate. There is no earthly reason why RAW and IB officers should be used to conduct dialogue with insurgent groups and rebels. That is a political task which should be assigned to either politicians or civil servants.

Likewise, there is a need to amend the rules of business to prevent the enlargement of intelligence to include surveillance of political rivals. The task of the intelligence agencies is to detect and anticipate threats to national security and provide information that assists in promoting the strategic objectives of foreign policy. It is not the job of the IB, for example, to predict the outcome of elections. Apart from getting it wrong most of the time, the energies of the agency is squandered in bazaar gossip and meaningless political tittle-tattle. There should be stringent guidelines defining what is permissible and what is illegal.

What is needed is a paradigm shift in the politicians' approach to intelligence. The intelligence agencies can begin doing their job only when their priorities have been bluntly identified and the right people chosen for the tasks. If ministers want an army of private informers they will get them, but the damage to national security will be incalculable. If India wants to be a great power, it will help if those at the helm spend time reading the Senate Committee and Butler reports.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/sep/07guest.htm
Richard M Bennett
September 07, 2004

The true ramifications of Rabinder Singh's exposure as a probable major CIA spy within the Indian intelligence service RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) are not yet fully known. The nagging worry for New Delhi must be that Singh was part of a much larger 'spy ring' reminiscent of those such as the Cambridge ring in the UK or the Walker ring in the USA that did so much to undermine the self-confidence and efficiency of those countries' intelligence communities during the Cold War.

The suggestion has already been made by a number of well-placed observers that Rabinder Singh had acted as a conduit or cutout for a number of highly placed US 'assets' operating deep within the Indian intelligence community, the military and scientific centres working on nuclear and missile development, and others inside the political establishment.

It is known that Singh's sister was also suspected of being a CIA 'agent' and that Singh managed to cover his tracks for some time by supposedly keeping tabs on her activities for the counter-intelligence section of the Research and Analysis Wing. Again the suspicion must be present that in some way they may have actually been working together to steal top secret information from under the very nose of the authorities.

Wherever this conjecture may lead, it is inescapable that one major question be asked.
Why is the United States pursuing such a vigorous espionage operation against a long-time ally of the West and a fearsome opponent of Muslim terrorism?

If India, as the world's largest democracy, should be so targeted by the CIA, are similar operations being conducted against the rest of Washington's supposed allies?
The answer to this is a very definite yes!

The US intelligence community may accept that there are 'friendly' nations, but it does not accept the notion of 'friendly' intelligence services. Even Israel's Mossad keeps the CIA at arm's length for much of the time and the famous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 highlighted Israel's determination to draw a line on just how much Washington was allowed to spy on their activities.

Britain, the Americans' oldest intelligence partner, is, however, under no illusion as to the true nature of the 'special relationship'. As much as 90 percent of the intelligence material handled by either GCHQ, the electronic intelligence-gathering organisation based in Cheltenham, or MI6, the secret intelligence service, emanates from their US partners in the NSA and CIA. Britain, despite its long record of espionage operations, is very much the junior partner and is well aware that even they are deeply penetrated by US 'assets'.

It has long been rumoured that the CIA has a special analysis section devoted to trying to identify the 'sources' for information obtained by MI6 in order to make an aggressive 'takeover bid'. Indeed it has been suggested that the British spent as much effort keeping the identity of one of their greatest spy successes, Oleg Gordievsky, secret from their American 'allies' as from their Soviet 'enemies' in order to protect his exposure by over-aggressive CIA recruitment tactics.

India, therefore, falls neatly into the US intelligence lexicon along with most, if not all, of Washington's allies, as friendly but untrustworthy.
What makes this spy case so important and deeply disturbing for New Delhi is that much of the classified material Rabinder Singh passed to the Americans may well have landed quickly on the desks of intelligence chiefs in Islamabad.

The suspicion must be present that one of the reasons for Pakistan's surprising willingness to publicly, if not privately, abandon its long-term support for the Taliban in Afghanistan was the flow of vital information on India's intentions and capabilities reaching the Inter-Services Intelligence organisation. The analysis provided by the ISI may well have proved of critical importance to Pakistan's diplomatic position throughout recent confrontations with India over Kashmir, Islamic terrorism, and nuclear weapons.

Confirmation once again that the United States trusts no one or for that matter any country completely in its war on terrorism and in its aggressive policy of comprehensive, intrusive worldwide intelligence-gathering operations must have sent shock waves through the security services of its putative allies.

There appears to be very little indeed that any country can do to protect its secrets from the might of US intelligence. Worse is the realisation that they need America far more than America needs them, a humbling and far from pleasant reality.

Whatever the final truth may turn out to be, and it has to be accepted that this is being buried very deep, particularly by the CIA and the highly embarrassed officials of India's counter-intelligence section, many of America's longest and most loyal allies may still be wise as with the Devil 'to sup with a long spoon' when dealing with the least friendly of 'friendly' intelligence services, those of the USA itself.

Richard M Bennett is a well-known intelligence and military analyst based in the United Kingdom.

GDP

The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. The GDP report is released at 8:30 am EST on the last day of each quarter and reflects the previous quarter. Growth in GDP is what matters, and the U.S. GDP growth has historically averaged about 2.5-3% per year but with substantial deviations. Each initial GDP report will be revised twice before the final figure is settled upon: the "advance" report is followed by the "preliminary" report about a month later and a final report a month after that. Significant revisions to the advance number can cause additional ripples through the markets. The GDP numbers are reported in two forms: current dollar and constant dollar. Current dollar GDP is calculated using today's dollars and makes comparisons between time periods difficult because of the effects of inflation. Constant dollar GDP solves this problem by converting the current information into some standard era dollar, such as 1997 dollars. This process factors out the effects of inflation and allows easy comparisons between periods. It is important to differentiate Gross Domestic Product from Gross National Product (GNP). GDP includes only goods and services produced within the geographic boundaries of the U.S., regardless of the producer's nationality. GNP doesn't include goods and services produced by foreign producers, but does include goods and services produced by U.S. firms operating in foreign countries.

http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/nash_product.htm
“Definition of Nash Product”
from Econterms

Definition: The Nash product is the maximand of the Nash Bargaining Solution:
(s1-d1)(s2-d2)
where d1 and d2 are the threat points, and s1 and s2 are the shares of the good to be divided.

http://www.investorwords.com/2153/GDP.html

Other Data:
http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/gdp.htm
www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/gdp.htm
http://www.quickmba.com/econ/macro/gdp/

Inflation

Inflation is a rise in the general price level and is reported in rates of change. Essentially what this means is that the value of your money is going down and it takes more money to buy things. Therefore a 4% inflation rate means that the price level for that given year has risen 4% from a certain measuring year (currently 1982 is used). The inflation rate is determined by finding the difference between price levels for the current year and previous given year. The answer is then divided by the given year and then multiplied by 100. To measure the price level, economists select a variety of goods and construct a price index such as the consumer price index (CPI). By using the CPI, which measures the price changes, the inflation rate can be calculated. This is done by dividing the CPI by the beginning price level and then multiplying the result by 100.

Causes of Inflation

There are several reasons as to why an economy can experience inflation. One explanation is the demand-pull theory, which states that all sectors in the economy try to buy more than the economy can produce. Shortages are then created and merchants lose business. To compensate, some merchants raise their prices. Others don't offer discounts or sales. In the end, the price level rises.

A second explanation involves the deficit of the federal government. If the Federal Reserve System expands the money supply to keep the interest rate down, the federal deficit can contribute to inflation. If the debt is not monetized, some borrowers will be crowded out if interest rates rise. This results in the federal deficit having more of an impact on output and employment than on the price level.

A third reason involves the cost-push theory which states that labor groups cause inflation. If a strong union wins a large wage contract, it forces producers to raise their prices in order to compensate for the increase in salaries they have to pay. The fourth explanation is the wage-price spiral which states that no single group is to blame for inflation. Higher prices force workers to ask for higher wages. If they get their way, then producers try to recover with higher prices. Basically, if either side tries to increase its position with a larger price hike, the rate of inflation continues to rise.

Finally, another reason for inflation is excessive monetary growth. When any extra money is created, it will increase some group's buying power. When this money is spent, it will cause a demand-pull effect that drives up prices. For inflation to continue, the money supply must grow faster than the real GDP.

Effects of Inflation

The most immediate effects of inflation are the decreased purchasing power of the dollar and its depreciation. Depreciation is especially hard on retired people with fixed incomes because their money buys a little less each month. Those not on fixed incomes are more able to cope because they can simply increase their fees. A second destablizling effect is that inflation can cause consumers and investors to changer their speeding habits. When inflation occurs, people tend to spend less meaning that factories have to lay off workers because of a decline in orders. A third destabilizing effect of inflation is that some people choose to speculate heavily in an attempt to take advantage of the higher price level. Because some of the purchases are high-risk investments, spending is diverted from the normal channels and some structural unemployment may take place. Finally, inflation alters the distribution of income. Lenders are generally hurt more than borrowers during long inflationary periods which means that loans made earlier are repaid later in inflated dollars.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Inflation.htm&e=7629

Other Data on Inflation:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Articles/Definitions.asp

Once an indian, always an Indian!

It is because of the business sense demonstrated below.

An Indian walks into a New York City bank and asks to see the loan officer.

He says he is going to Europe on business for two weeks and needs to borrow $5,000.

The bank officer says the bank will need some kind of security for such a loan, so the man hands over the keys of a new Rolls Royce parked on the street in front of the bank.

Everything is checked out, and the bank agrees to accept the car as collateral for the loan. An employee drives the Rolls into the bank's underground garage and parks it there.

Two weeks later, the man returns, repays the $5,000 and the interest,which comes to $15.41. The loan officer says, "We are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely,but we are little puzzled.

While you were away, we checked you out and found that you are a multimillionaire. What puzzles us is why would you bother to borrow $5,000?"

The Indian replied,"Where else in New York can I park my car for two weeks for 15 bucks?"

Cheers !

Indians are indians......, Smart brains.