ReportWire

Tag: U.S. Department of Defense

  • Fail fast, fight smarter: Silicon Valley’s startup mentality is rewiring the Pentagon | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Long known for its massive scale and bureaucratic complexity, the Pentagon is slowly transforming itself into a more streamlined organization, much like a Silicon Valley company.

    The “fail fast” mentality, once confined to startups, is taking root in the Department of War, previously known as the Department of Defense, thanks to AI and other systems that are revolutionizing the way the U.S. approaches global conflicts, speakers at the Fortune Most Powerful Women conference said on Tuesday.

    Radha Iyengar Plumb, a former chief digital and AI intelligence officer at the Pentagon who is now the vice president of AI-first transformation at IBM said the Pentagon is in some ways similar to a $1 trillion business. It has about three million employees, more ground vehicles than FedEx, and a supply chain three times larger than that of Walmart. Yet, for years, the massive amount of data linked to its operations was handled manually and inefficiently.

    Analysts would “literally swivel chair between multiple different computers” to gather intelligence and paste it into PowerPoint slides, she noted. 

    “When it is the world around you that is changing over time, that swivel chair just gets updated slowly,” Plumb said. “People don’t have full information about the world around them and that makes it harder to make good decisions.”

    Modernizing the Pentagon

    However, the government’s more recent efforts are slowly improving this situation. Shannon Clark, a former Pentagon analyst and current head of defense growth at Palantir, cited Project Maven, a Pentagon initiative launched in 2017 to consolidate data and integrate AI into battlefield operations, as a key driver of improvements. Palantir is a government contractor assisting the Pentagon in executing Project Maven. 

    Still, modernization also requires a new mindset, said Clark. The government and Congress need to take more risks, although they are already making strides, thanks in part to some outside influence, she added.

    “They’ve seen what the companies in Silicon Valley are doing,” said Clark. “I think they’re seeing that that’s the only way that we’re going to be able to forge forward faster, is by watching and failing and then learning from those mistakes, just as much as learning from success.”

    Incorporating AI into government has already helped drive results in part by speeding up how fast the Pentagon can buy and deliver things, said Plumb.

    Another positive development over the years has been the emergence of numerous defense technology companies that are helping the U.S. gain an edge over its adversaries, said Clark.

    “All of this technology was used for the 12-day war. All this technology was used for the conflict with Russia and Ukraine, and it’ll be used for whatever the next conflict is as well,” she said. “We really need America’s best and brightest to be working on this.” 

    [ad_2]

    Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Pentagon audit says Boeing cleaned up on Air Force parts, including soap dispensers marked up 8,000%

    Pentagon audit says Boeing cleaned up on Air Force parts, including soap dispensers marked up 8,000%

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Boeing overcharged the Air Force nearly $1 million for spare parts on C-17 cargo planes, including an 8,000% markup for simple lavatory soap dispensers, according to the Pentagon’s inspector general.

    The Defense Department’s auditor reviewed prices paid for 46 spare parts on the C-17 from 2018 to 2022 and found that 12 were overpriced and nine seemed reasonably priced. It couldn’t determine the fairness of prices on the other 25 items.

    The Office of the Inspector General said it reviewed the soap dispenser prices after getting a hotline tip.

    Boeing disputed the findings.

    “We are reviewing the report, which appears to be based on an inapt comparison of the prices paid for parts that meet aircraft and contract specifications and designs versus basic commercial items that would not be qualified or approved for use on the C-17,” Boeing said in a statement. “We will continue to work with the OIG and the U.S. Air Force to provide a detailed written response to the report in the coming days.”

    The C-17 Globemaster is one of the military’s largest cargo aircraft. It can carry multiple military vehicles, large pallets of humanitarian supplies or, in extreme circumstances, hundreds of people. The Air Force flew C-17s nonstop for two weeks during the hectic August 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, evacuating more than 120,000 civilians fleeing the Taliban.

    Since 2011, the U.S. government has awarded Boeing more than $30 billion in contracts to purchase needed spare parts for the C-17 and be reimbursed by the Air Force.

    Boeing is still trying to recover from financial and reputational damage caused by two deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019 of its bestselling airline jet, the 737 Max.

    This has been a particularly volatile year for the aerospace giant. It came under renewed scrutiny and federal investigations after a door plug flew off a 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight in January. Federal regulators limited Boeing production of the plane.

    In July, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to a felony count of conspiracy to defraud the government for misleading regulators who approved pilot training rules for the Max. That plea deal is pending before a federal judge in Texas.

    Boeing is on its third chief executive in five years, having hired an outsider who joined the company in August. Last week, Boeing reported a third-quarter loss of more than $6 billion because of charges for several commercial, defense and space programs.

    A strike by 33,000 union machinists is now seven weeks old and has crippled production of 737s, 777s and 767 freighters, cutting off much-need cash. New CEO Kelly Ortberg has announced roughly 17,000 layoffs, and the company will issue new stock to raise up to $19 billion to shore up its debt-laden balance sheet.

    ___

    Koenig reported from Dallas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: Trump’s misleading claims about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol

    FACT FOCUS: Trump’s misleading claims about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump said during his debate with President Joe Biden last week that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol involved a “relatively small” group of people who were “in many cases ushered in by the police.”

    But that’s not what happened. Thousands of his supporters were outside the Capitol that day and hundreds broke in, many of them beating and injuring law enforcement officers in brutal hand-to-hand combat as the officers tried to stop them from storming through windows and doors. There is ample video evidence of the violence, and more than 1,400 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot.

    Many of those who broke into the Capitol were echoing Trump’s false claims of election fraud, and some menacingly called out the names of lawmakers — particularly then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence, who refused to try to object to Biden’s legitimate win. The rioters interrupted the certification of Biden’s victory, but lawmakers who had evacuated both chambers returned that night to finish.

    Trump, now the presumptive GOP nominee to challenge Biden, has not only continued to mislead voters about what happened that day but has also heaped praise on the rioters, calling them “hostages” and promising to pardon them if he is elected. A look at some of his false claims:

    ‘PEACEFULLY AND PATRIOTICALLY’

    CLAIM: At the debate, Trump was asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper what he would say to any voters “who believe that you have violated your constitutional oath through your actions, inaction on January 6, 2021, and worry that you’ll do it again?” Trump simply replied: “Well, I didn’t say that to anybody. I said peacefully and patriotically.”

    THE FACTS: In a speech on the White House Ellipse the morning of Jan. 6 to thousands of supporters, Trump did tell the crowd to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol. But he also used far more incendiary language when speaking off the cuff in other parts of the speech, such as telling the crowd: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

    Trump did not address Tapper’s question about his inaction as his supporters broke into the building and injured police. More than three hours elapsed between the time his supporters violently breached the Capitol perimeter and Trump’s first effort to get the rioters to disperse. He released a video message at 4:17 p.m. that day in which he asked his supporters to go home but reassured them, “We love you, you’re very special.”

    Some rioters facing criminal charges have said in court they believed they had been following Trump’s instructions on Jan. 6. And evidence shown during trials illustrates that far-right extremists were galvanized by a Trump tweet inviting his supporters to a “wild” protest on Jan. 6. “He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!!” wrote one Oath Keepers member who was convicted of seditious conspiracy.

    POLICE ‘LET THEM IN’

    CLAIM: Trump said at the debate: “They talk about a relatively small number of people that went to the Capitol. And in many cases were ushered in by the police.” The next day, Trump said at a rally: “So many of these people were told to go in, right? The police: ‘Go in, go in, go in.’”

    THE FACTS: More than 100 Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers were injured, some severely, as they tried to keep the rioters from breaking into the Capitol. In some cases police retreated or stepped aside as they were overwhelmed by the violent, advancing mob, but there is no evidence that any rioter was “ushered” into the building.

    In an internal memo last year, U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said that the allegation that “our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides’” is “outrageous and false.” Manger said police were completely overwhelmed and outnumbered, and in many cases resorted to de-escalation tactics to try to persuade rioters to leave the building.

    The Capitol Police said in a statement this week that “under extreme circumstances, our officers performed their duties to the best of their ability to protect the members of Congress. With the assistance of multiple law enforcement agencies and the National Guard, which more than doubled the number of officers on site, it took several hours to secure the U.S. Capitol. At the end of the day, because of our officers’ dedication, nobody who they were charged with protecting was hurt and the legislative process continued.”

    NATIONAL GUARD RESPONSE

    CLAIM: Trump said he offered 10,000 National Guard troops to Pelosi and “she now admits that she turned it down.” Referring to a video Pelosi’s daughter took that day, Trump claimed that Pelosi said, “I take full responsibility for January 6.”

    THE FACTS: Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed that he offered National Guard troops to the Capitol and that his offer was rejected. He has previously said he signed an order for 20,000 troops to go to the Capitol.

    While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about whether the National Guard would be called ahead of the joint session, he issued no such order or formal request before or during the rioting, and the guard’s arrival was delayed for hours as Pentagon officials deliberated over how to proceed.

    In a 2022 interview with the Democratic-led House committee that investigated the attack, Christopher Miller, the acting Defense secretary at that time, confirmed that there was no order from the president.

    The Capitol Police Board makes the decision on whether to call National Guard troops to the Capitol, and two members of that board — the House Sergeant at Arms and the Senate Sergeant at Arms — decided through informal discussions not to call the guard ahead of the joint session that was eventually interrupted by Trump’s supporters, despite a request from the Capitol Police. The House Sergeant at Arms reports to the Speaker of the House, who was then Pelosi, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. But Pelosi’s office has said she was never informed of the request.

    The board eventually requested the guard’s assistance after the rioting was underway, and Pelosi and McConnell called the Pentagon and begged for military assistance. Pence, who was in a secure location inside the building, also called the Pentagon to demand reinforcements.

    In a video recently released by House Republicans, Pelosi is seen in the back of a car on Jan. 6 and talking to an aide. In the raw video recorded by her daughter, Pelosi is angrily asking her aide why the National Guard wasn’t at the Capitol when the rioting started. “Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?” she asks.

    “We did not have any accountability for what was going on there and we should have, this is ridiculous,” Pelosi says, while her aide responds that security officials thought they had sufficient resources. “They clearly didn’t know and I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more,” Pelosi says in the video.

    There is no mention of a request from Trump, and Pelosi never said that she took “full responsibility for Jan. 6.”

    In a statement, Pelosi spokesman Ian Krager said Trump’s repeated comments about Pelosi are revisionist history.

    “Numerous independent fact-checkers have confirmed again and again that Speaker Pelosi did not plan her own assassination on January 6th,” Krager said. “The Speaker of the House is not in charge of the security of the Capitol Complex — on January 6th or any other day of the week.”

    ‘INNOCENT’ RIOTERS

    CLAIM: Trump said to Biden during the debate, “What they’ve done to some people that are so innocent, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, what you have done, how you’ve destroyed the lives of so many people.”

    THE FACTS: Echoing Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, rioters at the Capitol engaged in hand-to-hand combat with police and a slew of rioters were carrying weapons, including firearms, knives, brass knuckle gloves, a pitchfork, a hatchet, a sledgehammer and a bow. They also used makeshift weapons, including flagpoles, a table leg, hockey stick and crutch, to attack officers. Police officers were bruised and bloodied, some dragged into the crowd and beaten. One officer was crushed in a doorframe and another suffered a heart attack after a rioter pressed a stun gun against his neck and repeatedly shocked him. One rioter has been charged with climbing scaffolding and firing a gun in the air during the melee.

    The rioters broke through windows and doors, ransacking the Capitol and briefly occupying the Senate chamber. Senators had evacuated minutes earlier. They also tried to break into the House chamber, breaking glass windows and beating on the doors. But police held them off with guns drawn.

    About 900 of the rioters have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds of them receiving a term of imprisonment ranging from a few days to 22 years. Hundreds of people who went into the Capitol but did not attack police or damage the building were charged only with misdemeanors.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Barbara Whitaker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Melissa Goldin and Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Drag shows on US military bases canceled by Pentagon after Republican criticism

    Drag shows on US military bases canceled by Pentagon after Republican criticism

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden’s administration has stopped U.S. military bases from hosting drag shows after criticism from some Republicans, amid a broader push in conservative-led states targeting LGBTQ+ celebrations.

    Hosting drag shows is “inconsistent with regulations regarding the use of (Defense Department) resources,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh in a statement Thursday.

    At least one show was canceled as a result. Organizers of an event at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada canceled a drag show timed to Pride Month, which began Thursday, according to a Facebook post quoted by Fox News.

    In her statement, Singh did not directly address LGBTQ+ rights but said the Defense Department was “proud to serve alongside any and every young American who takes the oath that puts their life on the line in defense of our country.”

    Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who sharply criticized top Pentagon leaders earlier this year and questioned them about drag shows, tweeted that the cancellation was a “HUGE VICTORY!”

    “Drag shows should not be taking place on military installations with taxpayer dollars PERIOD!” he added.

    Drag shows feature entertainers who dress and act as a different gender. They are often part of Pride events and can include colorfully clad drag queens reading books to children. Supporters say they celebrate people of different sexual orientations and promote acceptance.

    Opponents accuse organizers of drag shows of trying to “sexualize” children. Drag shows sometimes draw protesters and a bevy of Republican-led legislatures have passed bills in recent months trying to ban or restrict them.

    Nellis Air Force Base has previously hosted drag performers. About 180 people attended a similar show in 2021, according to Task and Purpose, a publication covering the military.

    The Pentagon’s move to cancel the show this week led the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for LGBTQ+ civil rights, to directly criticize Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

    “Before today, Secretary Austin has been unwavering in his support for LGBTQ+ Americans who proudly serve in uniform,” the group said in a statement. “However, instead of truly standing up for our community on the first day of Pride, he chose to side with the politics of fear and discrimination peddled by extreme members of Congress.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden sending 1,500 troops for Mexico border migrant surge

    Biden sending 1,500 troops for Mexico border migrant surge

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration will send 1,500 active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border starting next week, ahead of an expected migrant surge following the end of coronavirus pandemic-era restrictions.

    Military personnel will do data entry, warehouse support and other administrative tasks so that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can focus on fieldwork, White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday. The troops “will not be performing law enforcement functions or interacting with immigrants, or migrants,” Jean-Pierre said. “This will free up Border Patrol agents to perform their critical law enforcement duties.”

    They will be deployed for 90 days, and will be pulled from the Army and Marine Corps, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will look to backfill with National Guard or Reserve troops during that period, Pentagon spokesman Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said. There are already 2,500 National Guard members at the border.

    The COVID-19 restrictions have allowed U.S. officials to turn away tens of thousands of migrants crossing the southern border, but those restrictions will lift May 11, and border officials are bracing for a surge. Even amid the restrictions, the administration has seen record numbers of people crossing the border, and President Joe Biden has responded by cracking down on those who cross illegally and by creating new pathways meant to offer alternatives to a dangerous and often deadly journey.

    For Biden, who announced his Democratic reelection campaign a week ago, the decision signals his administration is taking seriously an effort to tamp down the number of illegal crossings, a potent source of Republican attacks, and sends a message to potential border crossers not to attempt the journey. But it also draws potentially unwelcome comparisons to Biden’s Republican predecessor, whose policies Biden frequently criticized. Congress, meanwhile, has refused to take any substantial immigration-related actions.

    Then-President Donald Trump deployed active-duty troops to the border to assist border patrol personnel in processing large migrant caravans, on top of National Guard forces that were already working in that capacity.

    Jean-Pierre downplayed any similarity between Biden’s immigration management and Trump’s use of troops during his term. “DOD personnel have been supporting CBP at the border for almost two decades now,” Jean-Pierre said. “So this is a common practice.”

    But some in Biden’s own party objected to the decision.

    “The Biden administration’s militarization of the border is unacceptable,” said Senate Committee on Foreign Relations chair Bob Menendez, D-N.J. “There is already a humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere, and deploying military personnel only signals that migrants are a threat that require our nation’s troops to contain. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

    It’s another line of defense in an effort to manage overcrowding and other possible issues that might arise as border officials move away from the COVID-19 restrictions. Last week, administration officials announced they would work to swiftly screen migrants seeking asylum at the border, quickly deport those deemed as not being qualified, and penalize people who cross illegally into the U.S. or illegally through another country on their way to the U.S. border.

    They will also open centers outside the United States for people fleeing violence and poverty to apply to fly in legally and settle in the United States, Spain or Canada. The first processing centers will open in Guatemala and Colombia, with others expected to follow.

    The Pentagon on Tuesday approved the request for troops by Homeland Security, which manages the border.

    The deployments have a catch: As a condition for Austin’s previous approval of National Guard troops to the border through Oct. 1, Homeland Security had to agree to work with the White House and Congress to develop a plan for longer-term staffing solutions and funding shortfalls, “to maintain border security and the safe, orderly, and humane processing of migrants that do not involve the continued use of DOD personnel and resources,” said Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Devin Robinson.

    As part of the agreement, the Pentagon has requested quarterly updates from Homeland Security on how it would staff its border mission without servicemembers. It was not immediately clear if those updates have happened or if border officials will be able to meet their terms of the agreement — particularly under the strain of another expected migrant surge.

    Homeland Security said it was working on it. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection is investing in technology and personnel to reduce its need for DOD support in coming years, and we continue to call on Congress to support us in this task,” the agency said in a statement.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Rebecca Santana, Lolita Baldor and Michael Balsamo contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Military sex assault reports rise, even as Army numbers fall

    Military sex assault reports rise, even as Army numbers fall

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of reported sexual assaults across the military inched up by about 1% last year, as a sharp decline in Army numbers offset large increases in the other three services, according to a Pentagon report released Thursday.

    The small overall uptick is significantly less than the 13% jump the Defense Department saw in 2021, but it’s overshadowed by the fact the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps all had more reports last year than the previous year.

    Because the Army is much larger than the other three services, its 9% drop in reported sexual assaults last year drove the overall military increase down. That large decrease comes a year after Army leaders saw a nearly 26% jump in reports involving soldiers — the largest increase for that service since 2013.

    The Air Force saw the largest increase in reported assaults during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, at 13%, while the Navy had a 9% jump and the Marine Corps went up by about 4%.

    Overall, there were more than 8,942 reports of sexual assaults involving service members during the 2022 fiscal year, a slight increase over the 8,866 the year before.

    The Pentagon and the military services have come under increasing criticism and pressure from members of Congress to reduce sexual assaults and harassment in the military. The services have long struggled to come up with programs to prevent sexual assaults and to encourage reporting, including a number of new initiatives over the past year.

    Defense officials have long argued that an increase in reported assaults is a positive trend because so many people are reluctant to report them, both in the military and in society as a whole. Greater reporting, they say, shows there is more confidence in the reporting system, greater comfort with the support for victims, and a growing number of offenders who are being held accountable.

    Nate Galbreath, acting director of the Pentagon’s sexual assault prevention and response office, said the department is using a budget infusion of $479 million this year to hire as many as 2,400 personnel for a new “prevention workforce.” He said about 350 have already been hired and as the number grows they will be placed in military installations around the world to help commanders address some of the risk factors that lead to sexual assault.

    “This is the first time in the 15 years that I’ve been working this issue for the Department of Defense that I have a fully funded and fully staffed way forward,” he told The Associated Press. “I think this is the thing that’s going to allow us to really address this. Everybody needs to hold us accountable. They need to watch this space, and we will make good on our promise to address this.”

    It’s unclear whether the latest increase in reports represents a growing problem or whether those who say they were assaulted were just more willing to come forward.

    While the military has made inroads in making it easier and safer for service members to come forward, it has had far less success reducing the assaults, which have increased nearly every year since 2006. And Army leaders, as an example, have acknowledged that issues such as sexual assaults, suicides and other problems have an impact on recruiting. All of the services have been struggling to meet recruiting goals.

    Asked about the latest report, Heather Hagan, an Army spokeswoman, said Thursday that “while encouraging, we know the Army has much more work to do to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment.”

    Army officials were alarmed as they saw the growing numbers last year and began trying to implement new programs, and by late fall they said that some changes were starting to work.

    They said one change involved a training program that soldiers get when they report to their first duty station. It is rolled out right away, and it has soldiers acting out dangerous situations and emphasizes training on how to respond.

    The Army officials also said they were beefing up evaluation programs that grade unit leaders, including randomly picking peers and others to do the assessments.

    Galbreath said the rate of sexual assault in the military is about the same as that of the civilian population. But he acknowledged that, “everyone expects more from the military — that when they send their son or daughter off to serve their nation, we have an environment that allows dignity and respect, and everyone has a chance to serve without fear of having to experience a sexual assault.”

    Galbreath also noted that in December the military will begin using independent attorneys to review and prosecute sexual assault cases, rather than unit commanders. That change was forced by members of Congress who believed that some commanders were biased or were opting not to prosecute or punish their troops, and as a result victims were reluctant to come forward.

    According to the Pentagon report, the number of Air Force sexual assault reports increased from 1,701 in 2021 to 1,928 last year, while the Navy went from 1,883 to 2,052, the Marine Corps went from 1,201 to 1,244 and the Army decreased from 4,081 to 3,718.

    The Pentagon releases a report every year on the number of sexual assaults reported by or about troops. But because sexual assault is a highly underreported crime, the department also does a confidential survey every two years to get a clearer picture of the problem. The most recent survey was released last year, so it won’t come out again until next year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Drone advances in Ukraine could bring dawn of killer robots

    Drone advances in Ukraine could bring dawn of killer robots

    [ad_1]

    KYIV, Ukraine — Drone advances in Ukraine have accelerated a long-anticipated technology trend that could soon bring the world’s first fully autonomous fighting robots to the battlefield, inaugurating a new age of warfare.

    The longer the war lasts, the more likely it becomes that drones will be used to identify, select and attack targets without help from humans, according to military analysts, combatants and artificial intelligence researchers.

    That would mark a revolution in military technology as profound as the introduction of the machine gun. Ukraine already has semi-autonomous attack drones and counter-drone weapons endowed with AI. Russia also claims to possess AI weaponry, though the claims are unproven. But there are no confirmed instances of a nation putting into combat robots that have killed entirely on their own.

    Experts say it may be only a matter of time before either Russia or Ukraine, or both, deploy them.

    “Many states are developing this technology,” said Zachary Kallenborn, a George Mason University weapons innovation analyst. ”Clearly, it’s not all that difficult.”

    The sense of inevitability extends to activists, who have tried for years to ban killer drones but now believe they must settle for trying to restrict the weapons’ offensive use.

    Ukraine’s digital transformation minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, agrees that fully autonomous killer drones are “a logical and inevitable next step” in weapons development. He said Ukraine has been doing “a lot of R&D in this direction.”

    “I think that the potential for this is great in the next six months,” Fedorov told The Associated Press in a recent interview.

    Ukrainian Lt. Col. Yaroslav Honchar, co-founder of the combat drone innovation nonprofit Aerorozvidka, said in a recent interview near the front that human war fighters simply cannot process information and make decisions as quickly as machines.

    Ukrainian military leaders currently prohibit the use of fully independent lethal weapons, although that could change, he said.

    “We have not crossed this line yet – and I say ‘yet’ because I don’t know what will happen in the future.” said Honchar, whose group has spearheaded drone innovation in Ukraine, converting cheap commercial drones into lethal weapons.

    Russia could obtain autonomous AI from Iran or elsewhere. The long-range Shahed-136 exploding drones supplied by Iran have crippled Ukrainian power plants and terrorized civilians but are not especially smart. Iran has other drones in its evolving arsenal that it says feature AI.

    Without a great deal of trouble, Ukraine could make its semi-autonomous weaponized drones fully independent in order to better survive battlefield jamming, their Western manufacturers say.

    Those drones include the U.S.-made Switchblade 600 and the Polish Warmate, which both currently require a human to choose targets over a live video feed. AI finishes the job. The drones, technically known as “loitering munitions,” can hover for minutes over a target, awaiting a clean shot.

    “The technology to achieve a fully autonomous mission with Switchblade pretty much exists today,” said Wahid Nawabi, CEO of AeroVironment, its maker. That will require a policy change — to remove the human from the decision-making loop — that he estimates is three years away.

    Drones can already recognize targets such as armored vehicles using cataloged images. But there is disagreement over whether the technology is reliable enough to ensure that the machines don’t err and take the lives of noncombatants.

    The AP asked the defense ministries of Ukraine and Russia if they have used autonomous weapons offensively – and whether they would agree not to use them if the other side similarly agreed. Neither responded.

    If either side were to go on the attack with full AI, it might not even be a first.

    An inconclusive U.N. report suggested that killer robots debuted in Libya’s internecine conflict in 2020, when Turkish-made Kargu-2 drones in full-automatic mode killed an unspecified number of combatants.

    A spokesman for STM, the manufacturer, said the report was based on “speculative, unverified” information and “should not be taken seriously.” He told the AP the Kargu-2 cannot attack a target until the operator tells it to do so.

    Fully autonomous AI is already helping to defend Ukraine. Utah-based Fortem Technologies has supplied the Ukrainian military with drone-hunting systems that combine small radars and unmanned aerial vehicles, both powered by AI. The radars are designed to identify enemy drones, which the UAVs then disable by firing nets at them — all without human assistance.

    The number of AI-endowed drones keeps growing. Israel has been exporting them for decades. Its radar-killing Harpy can hover over anti-aircraft radar for up to nine hours waiting for them to power up.

    Other examples include Beijing’s Blowfish-3 unmanned weaponized helicopter. Russia has been working on a nuclear-tipped underwater AI drone called the Poseidon. The Dutch are currently testing a ground robot with a .50-caliber machine gun.

    Honchar believes Russia, whose attacks on Ukrainian civilians have shown little regard for international law, would have used killer autonomous drones by now if the Kremlin had them.

    “I don’t think they’d have any scruples,” agreed Adam Bartosiewicz, vice president of WB Group, which makes the Warmate.

    AI is a priority for Russia. President Vladimir Putin said in 2017 that whoever dominates that technology will rule the world. In a Dec. 21 speech, he expressed confidence in the Russian arms industry’s ability to embed AI in war machines, stressing that “the most effective weapons systems are those that operate quickly and practically in an automatic mode.”

    Russian officials already claim their Lancet drone can operate with full autonomy.

    “It’s not going to be easy to know if and when Russia crosses that line,” said Gregory C. Allen, former director of strategy and policy at the Pentagon’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center.

    Switching a drone from remote piloting to full autonomy might not be perceptible. To date, drones able to work in both modes have performed better when piloted by a human, Allen said.

    The technology is not especially complicated, said University of California-Berkeley professor Stuart Russell, a top AI researcher. In the mid-2010s, colleagues he polled agreed that graduate students could, in a single term, produce an autonomous drone “capable of finding and killing an individual, let’s say, inside a building,” he said.

    An effort to lay international ground rules for military drones has so far been fruitless. Nine years of informal United Nations talks in Geneva made little headway, with major powers including the United States and Russia opposing a ban. The last session, in December, ended with no new round scheduled.

    Washington policymakers say they won’t agree to a ban because rivals developing drones cannot be trusted to use them ethically.

    Toby Walsh, an Australian academic who, like Russell, campaigns against killer robots, hopes to achieve a consensus on some limits, including a ban on systems that use facial recognition and other data to identify or attack individuals or categories of people.

    “If we are not careful, they are going to proliferate much more easily than nuclear weapons,” said Walsh, author of “Machines Behaving Badly.” “If you can get a robot to kill one person, you can get it to kill a thousand.”

    Scientists also worry about AI weapons being repurposed by terrorists. In one feared scenario, the U.S. military spends hundreds of millions writing code to power killer drones. Then it gets stolen and copied, effectively giving terrorists the same weapon.

    To date, the Pentagon has neither clearly defined “an AI-enabled autonomous weapon” nor authorized a single such weapon for use by U.S. troops, said Allen, the former Defense Department official. Any proposed system must be approved by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and two undersecretaries.

    That’s not stopping the weapons from being developed across the U.S. Projects are underway at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, military labs, academic institutions and in the private sector.

    The Pentagon has emphasized using AI to augment human warriors. The Air Force is studying ways to pair pilots with drone wingmen. A booster of the idea, former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work, said in a report last month that it “would be crazy not to go to an autonomous system” once AI-enabled systems outperform humans — a threshold that he said was crossed in 2015, when computer vision eclipsed that of humans.

    Humans have already been pushed out in some defensive systems. Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield is authorized to open fire automatically, although it is said to be monitored by a person who can intervene if the system goes after the wrong target.

    Multiple countries, and every branch of the U.S. military, are developing drones that can attack in deadly synchronized swarms, according to Kallenborn, the George Mason researcher.

    So will future wars become a fight to the last drone?

    That’s what Putin predicted in a 2017 televised chat with engineering students: “When one party’s drones are destroyed by drones of another, it will have no other choice but to surrender.”

    ———

    Frank Bajak reported from Boston. Associated Press journalists Tara Copp in Washington, Garance Burke in San Francisco and Suzan Fraser in Turkey contributed to this report.

    ———

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the war at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

    ———

    This story has been updated to correct when the U.N. report was issued. It came out in 2021, not last year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Drone advances in Ukraine could bring dawn of killer robots

    Drone advances in Ukraine could bring dawn of killer robots

    [ad_1]

    KYIV, Ukraine — Drone advances in Ukraine have accelerated a long-anticipated technology trend that could soon bring the world’s first fully autonomous fighting robots to the battlefield, inaugurating a new age of warfare.

    The longer the war lasts, the more likely it becomes that drones will be used to identify, select and attack targets without help from humans, according to military analysts, combatants and artificial intelligence researchers.

    That would mark a revolution in military technology as profound as the introduction of the machine gun. Ukraine already has semi-autonomous attack drones and counter-drone weapons endowed with AI. Russia also claims to possess AI weaponry, though the claims are unproven. But there are no confirmed instances of a nation putting into combat robots that have killed entirely on their own.

    Experts say it may be only a matter of time before either Russia or Ukraine, or both, deploy them.

    “Many states are developing this technology,” said Zachary Kallenborn, a George Mason University weapons innovation analyst. ”Clearly, it’s not all that difficult.”

    The sense of inevitability extends to activists, who have tried for years to ban killer drones but now believe they must settle for trying to restrict the weapons’ offensive use.

    Ukraine’s digital transformation minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, agrees that fully autonomous killer drones are “a logical and inevitable next step” in weapons development. He said Ukraine has been doing “a lot of R&D in this direction.”

    “I think that the potential for this is great in the next six months,” Fedorov told The Associated Press in a recent interview.

    Ukrainian Lt. Col. Yaroslav Honchar, co-founder of the combat drone innovation nonprofit Aerorozvidka, said in a recent interview near the front that human war fighters simply cannot process information and make decisions as quickly as machines.

    Ukrainian military leaders currently prohibit the use of fully independent lethal weapons, although that could change, he said.

    “We have not crossed this line yet – and I say ‘yet’ because I don’t know what will happen in the future.” said Honchar, whose group has spearheaded drone innovation in Ukraine, converting cheap commercial drones into lethal weapons.

    Russia could obtain autonomous AI from Iran or elsewhere. The long-range Shahed-136 exploding drones supplied by Iran have crippled Ukrainian power plants and terrorized civilians but are not especially smart. Iran has other drones in its evolving arsenal that it says feature AI.

    Without a great deal of trouble, Ukraine could make its semi-autonomous weaponized drones fully independent in order to better survive battlefield jamming, their Western manufacturers say.

    Those drones include the U.S.-made Switchblade 600 and the Polish Warmate, which both currently require a human to choose targets over a live video feed. AI finishes the job. The drones, technically known as “loitering munitions,” can hover for minutes over a target, awaiting a clean shot.

    “The technology to achieve a fully autonomous mission with Switchblade pretty much exists today,” said Wahid Nawabi, CEO of AeroVironment, its maker. That will require a policy change — to remove the human from the decision-making loop — that he estimates is three years away.

    Drones can already recognize targets such as armored vehicles using cataloged images. But there is disagreement over whether the technology is reliable enough to ensure that the machines don’t err and take the lives of noncombatants.

    The AP asked the defense ministries of Ukraine and Russia if they have used autonomous weapons offensively – and whether they would agree not to use them if the other side similarly agreed. Neither responded.

    If either side were to go on the attack with full AI, it might not even be a first.

    An inconclusive U.N. report last year suggested that killer robots debuted in Libya’s internecine conflict in 2020, when Turkish-made Kargu-2 drones in full-automatic mode killed an unspecified number of combatants.

    A spokesman for STM, the manufacturer, said the report was based on “speculative, unverified” information and “should not be taken seriously.” He told the AP the Kargu-2 cannot attack a target until the operator tells it to do so.

    Fully autonomous AI is already helping to defend Ukraine. Utah-based Fortem Technologies has supplied the Ukrainian military with drone-hunting systems that combine small radars and unmanned aerial vehicles, both powered by AI. The radars are designed to identify enemy drones, which the UAVs then disable by firing nets at them — all without human assistance.

    The number of AI-endowed drones keeps growing. Israel has been exporting them for decades. Its radar-killing Harpy can hover over anti-aircraft radar for up to nine hours waiting for them to power up.

    Other examples include Beijing’s Blowfish-3 unmanned weaponized helicopter. Russia has been working on a nuclear-tipped underwater AI drone called the Poseidon. The Dutch are currently testing a ground robot with a .50-caliber machine gun.

    Honchar believes Russia, whose attacks on Ukrainian civilians have shown little regard for international law, would have used killer autonomous drones by now if the Kremlin had them.

    “I don’t think they’d have any scruples,” agreed Adam Bartosiewicz, vice president of WB Group, which makes the Warmate.

    AI is a priority for Russia. President Vladimir Putin said in 2017 that whoever dominates that technology will rule the world. In a Dec. 21 speech, he expressed confidence in the Russian arms industry’s ability to embed AI in war machines, stressing that “the most effective weapons systems are those that operate quickly and practically in an automatic mode.” Russian officials already claim their Lancet drone can operate with full autonomy.

    “It’s not going to be easy to know if and when Russia crosses that line,” said Gregory C. Allen, former director of strategy and policy at the Pentagon’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center.

    Switching a drone from remote piloting to full autonomy might not be perceptible. To date, drones able to work in both modes have performed better when piloted by a human, Allen said.

    The technology is not especially complicated, said University of California-Berkeley professor Stuart Russell, a top AI researcher. In the mid-2010s, colleagues he polled agreed that graduate students could, in a single term, produce an autonomous drone “capable of finding and killing an individual, let’s say, inside a building,” he said.

    An effort to lay international ground rules for military drones has so far been fruitless. Nine years of informal United Nations talks in Geneva made little headway, with major powers including the United States and Russia opposing a ban. The last session, in December, ended with no new round scheduled.

    Washington policymakers say they won’t agree to a ban because rivals developing drones cannot be trusted to use them ethically.

    Toby Walsh, an Australian academic who, like Russell, campaigns against killer robots, hopes to achieve a consensus on some limits, including a ban on systems that use facial recognition and other data to identify or attack individuals or categories of people.

    “If we are not careful, they are going to proliferate much more easily than nuclear weapons,” said Walsh, author of “Machines Behaving Badly.” “If you can get a robot to kill one person, you can get it to kill a thousand.”

    Scientists also worry about AI weapons being repurposed by terrorists. In one feared scenario, the U.S. military spends hundreds of millions writing code to power killer drones. Then it gets stolen and copied, effectively giving terrorists the same weapon.

    The global public is concerned. An Ipsos survey done for Human Rights Watch in 2019 found that 61% of adults across 26 countries oppose the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems.

    To date, the Pentagon has neither clearly defined “autonomous weapon” nor authorized a single such weapon for use by U.S. troops, said Allen, the former Defense Department official. Any proposed system must be approved by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and two undersecretaries.

    That’s not stopping the weapons from being developed across the U.S. Projects are underway at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, military labs, academic institutions and in the private sector.

    The Pentagon has emphasized using AI to augment human warriors. The Air Force is studying ways to pair pilots with drone wingmen. A booster of the idea, former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work, said in a report last month that it “would be crazy not to go to an autonomous system” once AI-enabled systems outperform humans — a threshold that he said was crossed in 2015, when computer vision eclipsed that of humans.

    Humans have already been pushed out in some defensive systems. Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield is authorized to open fire automatically, although it is said to be monitored by a person who can intervene if the system goes after the wrong target.

    Multiple countries, and every branch of the U.S. military, are developing drones that can attack in deadly synchronized swarms, according to Kallenborn, the George Mason researcher.

    So will future wars become a fight to the last drone?

    That’s what Putin predicted in a 2017 televised chat with engineering students: “When one party’s drones are destroyed by drones of another, it will have no other choice but to surrender.”

    ———

    Frank Bajak reported from Boston. Associated Press journalists Tara Copp in Washington, Garance Burke in San Francisco and Suzan Fraser in Turkey contributed to this report.

    ———

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the war at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Military ID’s WWII Army Air Force soldier from New Jersey

    Military ID’s WWII Army Air Force soldier from New Jersey

    [ad_1]

    METUCHEN, N.J. — The remains of an Army Air Force sergeant from New Jersey who died during World War II have been positively identified, Defense Department officials announced Tuesday.

    Staff Sgt. Michael Uhrin, 21, of Metuchen, was assigned to the 369th Bombardment Squadron, 306th Bombardment Group, 40th Combat Wing, 8th Air Force in the European Theater, according to the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, or DPAA.

    On Oct. 14, 1943, Uhrin was the radio operator of a B-17F Flying Fortress bomber that was flying a mission to Schweinfurt, Germany, when it was shot down by enemy fighters near Rommelhausen and Langenbergheim, Hessen, Germany. The plane was among 60 lost during the mission. Surviving crew members said Uhrin was killed before the aircraft crashed and none of them saw him bail out.

    His death was confirmed shortly after the crash, but there was no record of his burial location.

    After the war, the American Graves Registration Command investigated around Rommelhausen and Langenbergheim, but couldn’t find any concrete evidence linking recovered remains with Uhrin. He was declared nonrecoverable in April 1955.

    DPAA historians who are focused on air losses over Germany later located a set of remains that they said had a strong chance of being Uhrin’s. The remains — which were buried in Ardennes American Cemetery, an American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery in Belgium — were disinterred in June 2021 and sent to the DPAA laboratory at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, for examination and identification.

    DPAA scientists used dental and anthropological analysis to identify Uhrin’s remains, as well as circumstantial evidence, while scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System performed DNA testing. He was accounted for in May, but his family only recently received their full briefing on the case.

    Uhrin’s name is recorded on the Walls of the Missing at Cambridge American Cemetery, an American Battle Monuments Commission site in the United Kingdom, along with the others still missing from World War II. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for, officials said.

    Uhrin will be buried in Metuchen, though a date hasn’t been determined.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pentagon debuts its new stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider

    Pentagon debuts its new stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider

    [ad_1]

    PALMDALE , Calif. — America’s newest nuclear stealth bomber made its debut Friday after years of secret development and as part of the Pentagon’s answer to rising concerns over a future conflict with China.

    The B-21 Raider is the first new American bomber aircraft in more than 30 years. Almost every aspect of the program is classified.

    As evening fell over the Air Force’s Plant 42 in Palmdale, the public got its first glimpse of the Raider in a tightly controlled ceremony. It started with a flyover of the three bombers still in service: the B-52 Stratofortress, the B-1 Lancer and the B-2 Spirit. Then the hangar doors slowly opened and the B-21 was towed partially out of the building.

    “This isn’t just another airplane,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said. “It’s the embodiment of America’s determination to defend the republic that we all love.”

    The B-21 is part of the Pentagon’s efforts to modernize all three legs of its nuclear triad, which includes silo-launched nuclear ballistic missiles and submarine-launched warheads, as it shifts from the counterterrorism campaigns of recent decades to meet China’s rapid military modernization.

    China is on track to have 1,500 nuclear weapons by 2035, and its gains in hypersonics, cyber warfare and space capabilities present “the most consequential and systemic challenge to U.S. national security and the free and open international system,” the Pentagon said this week in its annual China report.

    ”We needed a new bomber for the 21st Century that would allow us to take on much more complicated threats, like the threats that we fear we would one day face from China, Russia, ” said Deborah Lee James, the Air Force secretary when the Raider contract was announced in 2015.

    While the Raider may resemble the B-2, once you get inside, the similarities stop, said Kathy Warden, chief executive of Northrop Grumman Corp., which is building the bomber.

    “The way it operates internally is extremely advanced compared to the B-2, because the technology has evolved so much in terms of the computing capability that we can now embed in the software of the B-21,” Warden said.

    Other changes include advanced materials used in coatings to make the bomber harder to detect, Austin said.

    “Fifty years of advances in low-observable technology have gone into this aircraft,” Austin said. “Even the most sophisticated air defense systems will struggle to detect a B-21 in the sky.”

    Other advances likely include new ways to control electronic emissions, so the bomber could spoof adversary radars and disguise itself as another object, and use of new propulsion technologies, several defense analysts said.

    “It is incredibly low observability,” Warden said. “You’ll hear it, but you really won’t see it.”

    Six Raiders are in production. The Air Force plans to build 100 that can deploy either nuclear weapons or conventional bombs and can be used with or without a human crew. Both the Air Force and Northrop also point to the Raider’s relatively quick development: The bomber went from contract award to debut in seven years. Other new fighter and ship programs have taken decades.

    The cost of the bombers is unknown. The Air Force previously put the price at an average cost of $550 million each in 2010 dollars — roughly $753 million today — but it’s unclear how much is actually being spent. The total will depend on how many bombers the Pentagon buys.

    “We will soon fly this aircraft, test it, and then move it into production. And we will build the bomber force in numbers suited to the strategic environment ahead,” Austin said.

    The undisclosed cost troubles government watchdogs.

    “It might be a big challenge for us to do our normal analysis of a major program like this,” said Dan Grazier, a senior defense policy fellow at the Project on Government Oversight. “It’s easy to say that the B-21 is still on schedule before it actually flies. Because it’s only when one of these programs goes into the actual testing phase when real problems are discovered.” That, he said, is when schedules start to slip and costs rise.

    The B-2 was also envisioned to be a fleet of more than 100 aircraft, but the Air Force built only 21, due to cost overruns and a changed security environment after the Soviet Union fell. Fewer than that are ready to fly on any given day due to the significant maintenance needs of the aging bomber.

    The B-21 Raider, which takes its name from the 1942 Doolittle Raid over Tokyo, will be slightly smaller than the B-2 to increase its range, Warden said. It won’t make its first flight until 2023. However, Warden said Northrop Grumman has used advanced computing to test the bomber’s performance using a digital twin, a virtual replica of the one unveiled Friday.

    Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota will house the bomber’s first training program and squadron, though the bombers are also expected to be stationed at bases in Texas and Missouri.

    U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican of South Dakota, led the state’s bid to host the bomber program. In a statement, he called it “the most advanced weapon system ever developed by our country to defend ourselves and our allies.”

    Northrop Grumman has also incorporated maintenance lessons learned from the B-2, Warden said.

    In October 2001, B-2 pilots set a record when they flew 44 hours straight to drop the first bombs in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. The B-2 often does long round-trip missions because there are few hangars globally that can accommodate its wingspan, which limits where it can land for maintenance. The hangars also must be air-conditioned because the Spirit’s windows don’t open and hot climates can cook cockpit electronics.

    The new Raider will also get new hangars to accommodate its size and complexity, Warden said.

    However, with the Raider’s extended range, ’it won’t need to be based in-theater,” Austin said. “It won’t need logistical support to hold any target at risk.”

    A final noticeable difference was in the debut itself. While both went public in Palmdale, the B-2 was rolled outdoors in 1988 amid much public fanfare. Given advances in surveillance satellites and cameras, the Raider was just partially exposed, keeping its sensitive propulsion systems and sensors under the hangar and protected from overhead eyes.

    “The magic of the platform,” Warden said, “is what you don’t see.”

    ———

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the Air Force at https://apnews.com/hub/air-force.

    ———

    This story has been corrected to show the B-2 rollout was in 1988, not 1989.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • San Francisco may allow police to deploy robots that kill

    San Francisco may allow police to deploy robots that kill

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — Police in San Francisco could get the ability to deploy potentially lethal, remote-controlled robots in emergency situations if supervisors of the politically Democratic city grant permission Tuesday in a highly watched board vote.

    Police oversight groups are urging the 11-member San Francisco Board of Supervisors to reject the idea, saying it would lead to further militarization of a police force already too aggressive with poor and minority communities. They said the parameters under which use would be allowed are too vague.

    The San Francisco Police Department said it does not have pre-armed robots and has no plans to arm robots with guns. But the department could deploy robots equipped with explosive charges “to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect” when lives are at stake, SFPD spokesperson Allison Maxie said in a prepared statement.

    “Robots equipped in this manner would only be used in extreme circumstances to save or prevent further loss of innocent lives,” she said.

    The proposed policy does not lay out specifics for how the weapons can and cannot be equipped, leaving open the option to arm them. “Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD,” it says.

    The vote comes under a new California state law that requires police and sheriffs departments to inventory military grade equipment and seek approval for their use. San Francisco police currently have a dozen functioning ground robots used to assess bombs or provide eyes in low visibility situations, the department says. They were acquired between 2010 and 2017.

    The state law was authored last year by San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu while he was an assemblymember. It is aimed at giving the public a forum and voice in the acquisition and use of military grade weapons that have a negative effect on communities, according to the legislation.

    San Francisco police did not immediately respond to a question about how the robots were acquired, but a federal program has dispensed grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, bayonets, armored vehicles and other surplus military equipment to help local law enforcement.

    In 2017, then-President Donald Trump signed an order reviving the Pentagon program after his predecessor, Barack Obama, curtailed it in 2015, triggered in part by outrage over the use of military gear during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the shooting death of Michael Brown.

    Like many places around the U.S., San Francisco is trying to balance public safety with treasured civilian rights such as privacy and the ability to live free of excessive police oversight. In September, supervisors agreed to a trial run allowing police to access in real time private surveillance camera feeds in certain circumstances.

    Dissenting supervisors said they were astonished that a city that cherished its activism, diversity and privacy would even consider giving such powers to law enforcement.

    The San Francisco Public Defender’s office sent a letter Monday to the board saying that granting police “the ability to kill community members remotely” cuts against San Francisco’s progressive values. The public defender’s office would like the board to reinstate language prohibiting the police from using robots in a show of force against any person.

    The Oakland Police Department across the San Francisco Bay dropped a similar proposal after public backlash.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China, US officials to attend Southeast Asia defense meeting

    China, US officials to attend Southeast Asia defense meeting

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING — The defense chiefs of rival powers China and the U.S. will both attend next week’s expanded meeting of Southeast Asian security ministers in Cambodia, though it’s unclear whether they would meet face to face.

    China’s Defense Ministry said Gen. Wei Fenghe will attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Defense Ministers’ Meeting-Plus from Sunday to Thursday.

    The Department of Defense said Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III will also attend following stops in Canada and Indonesia.

    Both officials plan to meet with participants on the margins of the main gathering of ministers from the 10-nation organization known as ASEAN.

    Their two countries are chief rivals for influence in the region, where China is seeking to smooth over disputes surrounding its determination to assert its claim to the South China Sea, including through the construction of artifical islands equipped with airstrips and other infrastructure.

    The two countries are also at odds over Russia, which China has refused to condemn or sanction over its invasion of Ukraine, and the status of Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory and threatens to attack.

    China’s Defense Ministry said Wei would address the assembly and meet with heads of other delegations to discuss “bilateral cooperation and issues of regional and international concern.”

    It said he would also hold talks with civilian and military leaders of close Chinese ally Cambodia, with whom it is working on expanding a port facility that could give it a presence on the Gulf of Thailand.

    China and four ASEAN members share overlapping claims to territory in the South China Sea, home to vital shipping lanes, along with plentiful fish stocks and undersea mineral resources. China and ASEAN have made little headway on finalizing a code of conduct to avoid conflicts in the area.

    While China’s capacities are growing rapidly, the U.S. remains the region’s dominant military power and, while it doesn’t officially take a stand on sovereignty issues, it has refused to acknowledge China’s blanket claims. The U.S. Navy regularly sails past Chinese-held islands in what it calls freedom of navigation operations, prompting a furious response from Beijing.

    The U.S. also has a security alliance with the Philippines and strong relations with other ASEAN members, with the exception of Myanmar, where the military has launched a brutal crackdown since taking power last year.

    The U.S. Defense Department said that Austin would hold an “informal multilateral engagement” with his ASEAN counterparts and meet with officials from Cambodia and partner nations “to bring greater stability, transparency, and openness to the Indo-Pacific region.”

    At a previous defense forum attended by both U.S. and Chinese ministers in June in Singapore, Austin delivered a speech saying China’s “steady increase in provocative and destabilizing military activity near Taiwan” threatens to undermine the region’s security and prosperity.

    Wei said at the same conference that the U.S. is trying to turn Southeast Asian countries against Beijing and is seeking to advance its own interests “under the guise of multilateralism.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China slams reported plan for US B-52 bombers in Australia

    China slams reported plan for US B-52 bombers in Australia

    [ad_1]

    CANBERRA, Australia — The United States is preparing to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in northern Australia, a news report said Monday, prompting China to accuse the U.S. of undermining regional peace and stability.

    The United States is preparing to build dedicated facilities for the long-range bombers at Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, national broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported.

    Tindal is south of the coastal city of Darwin, where thousands of U.S. Marines Corps troops have spent about half of each year since 2012 under a deal struck between then-U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not directly respond when asked at a news conference on Monday if the United States is preparing to deploy bombers in Australia.

    “We engage with our friends in the United States alliance from time to time,” Albanese said.

    “There are visits to Australia, including in Darwin, that has U.S. Marines on a rotating basis stationed there,” he said.

    The U.S. Air Force told ABC the ability to deploy U.S. bombers to Australia “sends a strong message to adversaries about our ability to project lethal air power.”

    Asked about U.S. nuclear bombers being positioned in Australia, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said defense and security cooperation between countries should “not target any third parties or harm the interests of third parties.”

    “The relevant U.S. behaviors have increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region,” Zhao told reporters at a regular briefing in Beijing.

    “China urges the parties concerned to abandon the outdated Cold War and zero-sum mentality and narrowminded geopolitical thinking, and to do something conducive to regional peace and stability and enhancing mutual trust between the countries,” Zhao added.

    Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton, who was defense minister when his conservative government was voted out office in May, welcomed the prospect of B-52 bombers having a regular presence in Australia.

    “It would be fantastic to have them cycling through more regularly,” Dutton said, referring to the bombers. “It bolsters our security position in an uncertain time.”

    While in office, Dutton said he had discussed with U.S. authorities rotating all aspects of the U.S. Air Force through sparsely populated northern Australia.

    “To defend that (northern Australia) and to deter anybody from taking action against us is absolutely essential,” Dutton said.

    “We have a vulnerability and it’s important for us to have a very strong relationship with the United States … and all of our allies,” Dutton added.

    ABC said U.S. tender documents showed that the U.S. Defense Department is planning to build an aircraft parking apron at Tindal to accommodate six B-52s.

    There were detailed designs for the construction of a U.S Force “squadron operations facility” at Tindal as well as a maintenance center, jet fuel storage tanks and an ammunition bunker, the ABC reported.

    “The RAAF’s ability to host USAF bombers, as well as train alongside them, demonstrates how integrated our two air forces are,” the U.S. Defense Department told the ABC.

    The ABC did not provide a timeframe for the Tindal upgrade.

    ———

    AP video producer Liu Zheng in Beijing contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk: SpaceX might keep funding satellite service in Ukraine

    Musk: SpaceX might keep funding satellite service in Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Billionaire Elon Musk suggested in a Saturday tweet that his rocket company SpaceX may continue to fund its satellite-based Starlink internet service in Ukraine. But Musk’s tone and wording also raised the possibility that the irascible Tesla CEO was just being sarcastic.

    Musk frequently tweets jokes and insults and sometimes goes on unusual tangents, such as a recent series of tweets suggesting that one of his companies has begun selling its own line of fragrances. It is not clear if SpaceX has actually established future plans for service in Ukraine.

    On Friday, senior U.S. officials confirmed that Musk had officially asked the Defense Department to take over funding for the service Starlink provides in Ukraine. Starlink, which provides broadband internet service using more than 2,200 low-orbiting satellites, has provided crucial battlefield communications for Ukrainian military forces since early in the nation’s defense against Russia’s February invasion.

    “The hell with it … even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free,“ Musk tweeted Saturday.

    Early Friday, Musk tweeted that it was costing SpaceX $20 million a month to support Ukraine’s communications needs. Tesla didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The senior U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter not yet made public, said the issue of Starlink funding has been discussed in meetings and that senior leaders are weighing the matter. There have been no decisions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk: SpaceX might keep funding satellite service in Ukraine

    Musk: SpaceX might keep funding satellite service in Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Billionaire Elon Musk suggested in a Saturday tweet that his rocket company SpaceX may continue to fund its satellite-based Starlink internet service in Ukraine. But Musk’s tone and wording also raised the possibility that the irascible Tesla CEO was just being sarcastic.

    Musk frequently tweets jokes and insults and sometimes goes on unusual tangents, such as a recent series of tweets suggesting that one of his companies has begun selling its own line of fragrances. It is not clear if SpaceX has actually established future plans for service in Ukraine.

    On Friday, senior U.S. officials confirmed that Musk had officially asked the Defense Department to take over funding for the service Starlink provides in Ukraine. Starlink, which provides broadband internet service using more than 2,200 low-orbiting satellites, has provided crucial battlefield communications for Ukrainian military forces since early in the nation’s defense against Russia’s February invasion.

    “The hell with it … even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free,“ Musk tweeted Saturday.

    Early Friday, Musk tweeted that it was costing SpaceX $20 million a month to support Ukraine’s communications needs. Tesla didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The senior U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter not yet made public, said the issue of Starlink funding has been discussed in meetings and that senior leaders are weighing the matter. There have been no decisions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk: SpaceX might keep funding satellite service in Ukraine

    Musk: SpaceX might keep funding satellite service in Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Billionaire Elon Musk suggested in a Saturday tweet that his rocket company SpaceX may continue to fund its satellite-based Starlink internet service in Ukraine. But Musk’s tone and wording also raised the possibility that the irascible Tesla CEO was just being sarcastic.

    Musk frequently tweets jokes and insults and sometimes goes on unusual tangents, such as a recent series of tweets suggesting that one of his companies has begun selling its own line of fragrances. It is not clear if SpaceX has actually established future plans for service in Ukraine.

    On Friday, senior U.S. officials confirmed that Musk had officially asked the Defense Department to take over funding for the service Starlink provides in Ukraine. Starlink, which provides broadband internet service using more than 2,200 low-orbiting satellites, has provided crucial battlefield communications for Ukrainian military forces since early in the nation’s defense against Russia’s February invasion.

    “The hell with it … even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free,“ Musk tweeted Saturday.

    Early Friday, Musk tweeted that it was costing SpaceX $20 million a month to support Ukraine’s communications needs. Tesla didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The senior U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter not yet made public, said the issue of Starlink funding has been discussed in meetings and that senior leaders are weighing the matter. There have been no decisions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link