Amorphous blob robot takes first steps (SLYT)
posted by mhjb on Dec 2, 2009 - 51 comments

January: Newly sworn-in President Obama says, "We need greater investment in... essential systems like the C-17 cargo... aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power." April: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says, "Our analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s, with the 205 already in the force and currently in production." May: The Office of Management and Budget proposes the termination of the C-17 program with a savings of $17 billion. July: The 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill includes funding for the program. September 29: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposes an amendment to strip that funding - "You can't walk through these hallways without bumping into a lobbyist from Boeing." September 30: By a vote of 64 to 34, the Senate defeats the amendment.
posted by Joe Beese on Oct 1, 2009 - 113 comments

The Pentagon plans to spend $400 million to develop a giant blimp that will float 65,000 feet above the Earth for 10 years, providing unblinking and intricate radar surveillance of the vehicles, planes and even people below. [more inside]
posted by gman on Mar 13, 2009 - 106 comments

America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress (2.3 MB PDF). A new report from the Center for Defense Information on the DoD's wastefulness, and suggested solutions. Recommended holiday reading from James Fallows and Andrew Sullivan.
posted by homunculus on Nov 26, 2008 - 29 comments

Mission Creep: "Bush and Rumsfeld may be history, but America's new global footprint lives on." [more inside]
posted by homunculus on Aug 26, 2008 - 33 comments

Attention Geeks and Hackers: Uncle Sam's Cyber Force Wants You! [more inside]
posted by homunculus on Jun 5, 2008 - 29 comments

Television military analysts are wooed, courted, and privileged by the Pentagon. An in-depth investigative report by the New York Times uncovers logrolling, shilling, touting, back-scratching, and just plain bias on the part of the experts that television networks put on the air to talk about the war. Some of them appear to be as good as owned by the Defense Department. "The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves."
posted by Mo Nickels on Apr 19, 2008 - 37 comments

I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed by Me is a new book by author and interesting person Trevor Paglen. He collects patches designed by military personnel to commemorate secret "black-ops" projects.
posted by Miko on Feb 7, 2008 - 34 comments

As if a looming draft isn't enough, we now have a military recruitment web site nearly masquerading as commercial (.com) job-placement web site run by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) from the Pentagon. ASVAB stands for Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a test administered for career placement for all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. Will there be any children left behind in America. Is our past our future?
posted by augustweed on Sep 7, 2005 - 35 comments

Oh, You Mean Those Records The Pentagon released "newly discovered payroll records from President Bush's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard." The earlier statement that the records were inadvertently destroyed was an "inadvertent oversight." [Previously discussed here and here.]
posted by kirkaracha on Jul 23, 2004 - 39 comments

The dog ate my service records. The Pentagon has announced that the payroll records for National Guard service for three months between 1972 and 1973 have been accidentally destroyed. These three months coincidentally cover the disputed period of George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. (Similar Google link here, via dKos)
posted by XQUZYPHYR on Jul 9, 2004 - 71 comments

"Now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week and rewriting the war plan. The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan." Seems patently obvious, no? But tell Iraqi state television that and suddenly you're speaking from "a position of complete ignorance," according to the White House.

Peter Arnett, highly respected, Pulitzer Prize winner and the first journalist to interview Osama Bin Laden on film, wouldn't back down the last time a network caved into craven submission at hands of the American military, and he's been sacked by NBC/MSNBC for again refusing to do so. There's no First Amendment case, obviously, and no real surprise that the military would be exerting pressure to maintain control over information, but does the firing of high-profile Arnett for the repeating the obvious increase anybody's confidence that we're hearing anything resembling the truth?
posted by JollyWanker on Mar 31, 2003 - 30 comments

"The only thing that Berretta has is the sales people." The Standard issue M-9 has left Afghanistan vets feeling shafted. Some Marines have opted to carry .45s. But it's not just the pistol that's under-powered. The M-16 and its 5.56mm round lack stopping power too. It doesn't have the greatest track record from its first adoption during the Vietnam War. Despite the glowing report of Project Agile. How many times do we have to witness penny-pinching Pentagon Wars putting our armed forces at greater risk?
posted by john on Oct 16, 2002 - 38 comments

Military may take part in DC Sniper Hunt The Pentagon is making some noise about possibly using military personnel and equipment in the hunt for the DC area sniper. I am normally not a paranoid conspiracy type but... Would it be unthinkable that the government could be behind the whole thing. First they put out trained snipers to kill random victims and scare the hell out of the public. Then the military come in and save the day. At the same time they set a precedent for using the military to "fight crime" in the country. While I don't think this is the case, would you put it past the current administration?
posted by Blubble on Oct 15, 2002 - 76 comments

Filmmakers let the Pentagon edit their scripts in exchange for rights to use government land and military equipment. Great article complete with hilarious "military mind" quotes. Need more government/pop culture collusion? N'SYNC is getting $800,000 in tax payer's money for an anti-drug campaign.
posted by skallas on Aug 31, 2001 - 6 comments

Pentagon fraud $9,000,000,000. I hope this is a misprint. More inside.
posted by rdr on Jul 27, 2001 - 35 comments

M.I.T. Physicist Says Pentagon Is Trying To Silence Him. (NYTimes, registration required) So, it appears that the Pentagon commissions a panel to "review" ("refute"?) a contrary assessment of antimissile technology, but when an unintended byproduct of that review is more criticism of said technology, they pull this little snow job? I guess we've heard this song before, but it's still laughable. Interesting comment from the Brass: "just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified." I guess he must mean "authorized", because for my money, that's exactly what it means.
posted by topolino on Jul 27, 2001 - 13 comments

Hmm, should we maybe reduce funding for the Pentagon?
posted by snakey on Oct 31, 2000 - 8 comments

Pentagon to modify gay policy They have instituted a policy that attempts to prevent mistreatment or harassment against people who aren't even allowed to say who they are. I'm sure the gay men and women serving our country are sleeping much easier tonight.
posted by brian on Jul 22, 2000 - 3 comments

Another Penatagon report indicates that there is no forseeable relief for gays in the military? When 85% of respondents (of the 71,500 U.S. military service personnel polled worldwide) state that they believe that anti-gay words and behavior is tolerated and 80% claim that they've heard an offensive remark (in the ranks) about homosexuals in the past year, is another onslaught of talking heads and pointless summits the answer? will it take another barry winchell to shake this administration into real action?
posted by jburr on Mar 25, 2000 - 6 comments