Recently Texas State Senator Roland Gutierrez stated that an AR-15 Rifle could fire three times faster then his 9mm pistol. Outside of the fact he gave no number for how fast he can shoot his pistol, its highly improbable for a long rifle to have a higher rate of fire than a pistol.

First, is the problem of cartridge length, which dictates how much movement the bolt makes to extract a spent casing and then to load a fresh round. The 9mm pistol has to move 19mm back and forth to complete the firing  cycle: An AR-15 rifle of 5.56 caliber has to move 45mm. To further document the point a MAC10 sub-machinegun firing 45ACP has a RPM of 1090: the 9mm version has a RPM of 1200, and the even shorter 0.380 cal MAC11 has a RPM of 1500. 

The documented cyclic fire rate of a 5.56 caliber M16 military rifle is 750. I had to search for a pistol cyclic rate which I found for the full auto Baretta 93R: 700. The M16 is slightly faster but hardly three times. At the same time I am using cyclic fire rate which is impossible to achieve. The M16 in semi-auto mod can possibly empty two 30 rd mags in a minute for an achievable rate of fire of 60. To achieve the Senator's pistol rate of 20 (1/3) with my 9mm I would need just one mag change and not empty the second mag. Thus comes the real issue which is magazine size.

Then the senator makes a remark of some mythical- high lethality- ammunition for the AR15. This in stark contrast to the fifty plus years of ex-military personnel remarking on the 5.56 rd poor hitting power. It could be he is talking about the recently Army deployed M855A1 EPR ammunition which I doubt can be purchased legally. So poor has been the 5.56mm the Army is finally changing to a 6.8mm rd bringing its size halfway back to the 7.62 NATO rd used prior. But no one is claiming the 7.62 NATO as highly lethal. 

The Seattle Times on Monday reported that the FBI and the department of Justice were searching for two men who have been indicted for Hacking a Software company for fluid dynamics analysis programs used in the creation of GPS guided artillery shells. The issue the Seattle Times was noting is that these two men, who are still at large, where connected to a third Iranian who was pardoned by President Obama as part of a prisoner exchange with Iran.

The software stolen is clearly ITAR restricted, so its a national security issue. But one has to wonder what the pardoned Iranian did to get arrested and held by the United States. The two men being sought by the FBI, may in fact be in Ira; they may have done the Hack over the internet and never entered the United States. That being said, did the third person in this story, the man actually held by the Justice Department, set up some kind of back door to this company for the other two men to exploit via the internet. And, if this is the case, by exchanging him with the Iranians did we then give them the information on how to enter said back door.

I hope we really got someone good back in that prisoner swap. Otherwise its another Bergdhal case.

Apologies to George Will and his wonderful concern Trump can't speak clearly: I think Mr Wills is the one who can't hear clearly. But a lot of twitter and facebook time has been spent over Trump supposedly saying Andrew Jackson was around for the Civil War. What Trump actually, clearly said, was if Andrew Jackson had been around in 1860 we wouldn't have had a Civil War. Now of course why would he (Trump) say that?

Trump was noting that Jackson would not have tolerated the secession of the first Southern State, something that James Buchanan, president at the start of the conflict, allowed. Lincoln's election may have laid the charges, but it was out-going president Buchanan who let the initial States secede and seize US forts within their borders. As Buchanan said "The power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union," was not among the "... enumerated powers granted to Congress."

Jackson may have been a slave owner, but he was also a man of action and a patriot. When the State of Delaware passed a law effectively disbanding the State militia Jackson threatened to arrest the legislature (since he as commander in chief commanded that militia). He fought some of the most prominent politicians and business men of his time, taking on even the Supreme Court. Call him an imperial president if you wish, but Jackson would not have sat on his hands as Buchanan did when South Carolina Seceded in December of 1860.

Now would Jackson have ended Slavery, Its pretty obvious he held with the institution. But while in office as president he made no attempt to roll back the ban on importation, or the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which had prevented Civil War back in Monroe's presidency. At the same time he did sign the 1830 legislation forcing the removal of the Cherokee indians (who had declared themselves an independent nation in 1927). 

And he was a believer in freedom of travel. In 1811 Silas Dinsmoor, Indian Agent for the Choctaws got on the bad side of Andrew jackson when he ordered enforcement of a law that required anyone traveling the Natchez Trace through Choctaw territory to carry papers with them proving their ownership of any enslaved people accompanying them.   It was an old requirement, just as freedmen were required to  keep the documents attesting to that. For Jackson, who used the Natchez trace to move goods from Nashville to Natchez when the river was low, it was an unacceptable requirement. Exactly when Jackson threatened to arm his slaves and then to burn down the home of Dinsmoor (after hanging him) is uncertain. But the war of words matches the time when Jackson was marching his troops back to Tennessee along the same Natchez trace. And one would expect Jackson had a few servants with him on that march where he gained the title old Hickory. 

In short Jackson was a man who didn't tolerate things. He fought duels, and threatened to hang others (Dinsmoor wasn't the only one). As stated he ignored the Supreme Court Justice Marshall and yes, he threatened both the State legislature of Delaware and of South Carolina (who was implementing Nullification). And in all cases, prompt action on his part stopped things from advancing further. 

When Shawn Spicer stated that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons, he actually was correct. And suprisingly, the people who demanded he apologise don't appreciate how the truth needs to be told. And by the way, I haven't said Hitler didn't kill people with poisonous gas. I just know there is a difference between a chemical bomb dropped from an aircraft, and the fixed gas chambers of Hitlers camps.

To get to the point, people like Chris Mathews have stated for years North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. Their distinction between a nuclear device, which they recognize they have, and a nuclear weapon is the presence of a delivery system. And thus until North Korea actually fires a missile with a live nuclear warhead against a target, These nay sayers  will continue to claim the North Koreans don't have a nuclear weapon. 

The significance between this and Hitler's death camps: the people were forcibly delivered to the gas chambers, not the gas chambers launched against the people. For it to be a chemical weapon it had to be employed/delivered. Further there has to be an expectation of a similar response. If North Korea was to fire a live nuke, there would be an expectation of a military response. Hitler never employed chemical weapons during the war simply because of the fact the allies would respond with the same. 

Some facts when it comes to the second World War. First, Germany stockpiled Sarin nerve gas before the war began: estimate 45,000 tons by 1943. The German Army also required their troops to always carry a gas mask: this was an item that was never present on American and British troops. But with the exception of a couple of cases in 1942 and early 1943 when rogue Army units employed CWs they had with them, the German Army didn't employ chemical weapons. It is reported that after being asked by Goebbels and Bormann to allow the use of  Chemical weapons to stop the advancing Russian Army, Hitler, upset by the previous uses without his authorization, ordered that any further use had to be approved by him. And as the Americans and British drove up through Italy, not only did Hitler order that any stocks of German Chemical weapons in Italy, or Italian CWs, be destroyed.  Hitler made sure their would be no use by rogue units or officers following the previously mentioned actions in 1942 and early 1943.

And Hitler's concern, that the allies would respond with even more gas. He had been informed that German intelligence expected that the allies had twice as much poison gas as the Germans. In point of fact, because of a rumor that Germany would actually implement gas warfare to defend Italy, a shipment of 2,000 mustard gas bombs were sent to Italy by the Allies. We know of these bombs because the ship they were on was hit by a bomb during the German air attack on the Harbor at Bari Italy. Over 600 sailors and medical personnel were victims of these bombs, which the allies wouldn't admit were there since they were only sent  to be used if the Germans used Chemical Weapons first. 

Now that these facts are on the record, what did Hitler do in his camps. The death camps used cyanide gas, no different then that use in gas chambers at American or European prisons until the 1980s. Hitler took the cold bureaucratic system for dealing with criminals to the nth degree as he killed whole races and religious groups. And when they were not using cyanide, they had vans rigged up to kill people in them by ducting the engine exhaust into the passenger area. In this case the poison gas was Carbon Monoxide, no different then when people start their car in a closed garage and then just wait for death. The gas is poisonous, but its not a chemical weapon.

Now for the true point in all this. People are falling over each other to try and claim Trump didn't need to fire missiles at Syria. Some are claiming what happened in this town in Syria is a false flag operation since its the only such incident- running in line with the claims of Vladimir Putin. Others want to claim its no different then the use of a bayonet or a gun. The real issue is the number of these incidents that have happened since the Civil War began: incidents that are not always in the Newspapers or News at 10:00. At present there are over 60 reported cases of the use of poison gas by both sides in the war. Cases involving the ISIS group tend to involve Mustard gas. Cases involving Sarin tend to point back to the Syrian Army as the source. But Sarin is not the weapon of choice for Assad; the weapon of choice is Chlorine gas. Its lethality has been known since World War 1, but since its use to purify water it is not identified as a banned weapon by the UN. Thus numerous CW attacks by the Syrian Army that have injured hundreds of people get little or no attention because the chemical has "practical" uses. 

Monday an interview I had with the host of the History Author Show was broadcast on iHeart Radio.  It was a good interview with several questions. You can hear the whole interview via podcast.

NASA is dealing with the high probability that their wonderful civilian space capsules may not be ready for service in 2018.

First is Space X which likes to violate every rule in the book. From planning to board the astronauts before they load the propellants, to using ultra cold LOX that makes for a tricky fueling cycle, to finally having it come out that the ultra cold LOX was causing the engine turbine to crack when operated.  And none of this includes the fact the Dragon 2 capsule for manned flight intends to use RATO engines for landing.

While SpaceX has these issues, Boeing just has one: man rating its Russian engine for the Atlas V. In truth its real problem is actually making an engine for the Atlas V so we can cut the cord with Russia on Space launch period. The use of the Russian engine has always been a liability and in this time of Ukraine and Syria, we should have had an alternative years ago. No, instead of spending the time to man rate the Delta IV heavy, and potentially allow the use of Orion for low earth orbit, we choose to stick our face in the sand and let ULA continue to offer an engine/vehicle that we can't man rate under any circumstances. Regardless of what their arguments- ULA or SpaceX- someone needs to step forward and give some real answers. For if things between Russia and the United States get any testier, the inability to do manned launches could be viewed as deliberate sabotage.

When I saw this on ABC News I said to myself this had to be a skit from Saturday Night Live. A German Intelligence officer playing an islamic extremist on the internet makes contact with an islamic extremist only to find the extremist was just hired by German Intelligence.  The guy could have been just two cubes over.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/islamic-extremist-mole-german-intel-agency-recent-hire-43866542
​