Jeffrey T. Richelson

The Ties That Bind: Intelligence Cooperation between the UKUSA Countries

The Ties That Bind : Intelligence Cooperation Between the UK/USA Countries PDF Are you searching for The Ties That Bind : Intelligence Cooperation Between the UK/USA Countries Books? Now, you will be happy that at this time The Ties That Bind : Intelligence Cooperation Between the UK/USA Countries PDF is available at our online library. With our complete resources, you could find The Ties That Bind : Intelligence Cooperation Between the UK/USA Countries PDF or just found any kind of Books for your readings everyday.

Conditions on social choice functions

ConclusionIt might be tempting to view this paper simply as a compilation and collection of the conditions in the social choice literature and an orderly presentation of the relationships among these conditions. While we think that this alone would make it useful we hope this paper will serve as more than a reference guide, that it will also help systematize research in various areas.It would be interesting, for example, to take each subgroup of the rationality conditions and determine what impossibility results can be obtained when each of the conditions in the subgroup is substituted for the traditional TR, QTR and AR conditions. It would then be possible to develop an overall picture of the structure and robustness of the impossibility results for each subgroup of conditions and hence for all the rationality conditions.We would also hope that this paper would stimulate some discussion of the fairness and reasonableness of the conditions presented here. Many of the conditions covered above are, we believe, neither fair nor reasonable. Achievement of some consensus as to what constitute meaningful requirements for a social choice function would help provide a more common direction for social choice research.

Running off empty: Run-off point systems

One form of the multistage election system is the run-off system, whereby an initial set of candidates is reduced by eliminating from consideration the lowest ranking alternatives at each stage of the process. This paper investigates three run-off systems: the plurality run-off, the Nanson system, and the Coombs system, with respect to five criteria including Partial Non-manipulability, the Uniform Majority Principle, Independence from Individual Orderings, Voter Adaptability, and Inverse Condorcet.

Social choice and the status quo

Concluding remarksI have investigated the social choice problem from the perspective of seeking to insure that a majority of voters are not worse off after the election, such that worse off means selecting an alternative that would lose to the status quo in a majority contest. This investigation led rather naturally to using the status quo as a benchmark against which to judge challengers.Both the Fdmand F*dmprocedures have attractive properties. Both satisfy the Not Worse-Off and Majority Improvement Principles. The Fdmrule is rationalizable by a transitive R and allows for ease of voter response, while the Fdm*rule satisfies binary Pareto. Both satisfy IIA, anonymity and (m − 1) neutrality.Examination of the results of repeated applications of the Fdmprocedure reveals that these results are heavily influenced by the starting point, with there being no guarantee that the process will move into the minmax, M-dominant, or similar solution set. Whether this is considered acceptable will depend on whether one believes the social choice should be a subset of these sets regardless of the identity of the status quo.

The Whole World is Watching

As more nations build and launch their own spy satellites, secrecy is becoming a thing of the past.

MASINT: The New Kid in Town

Photographic and communications intelligence can trace their identities as major collection disciplines back to the early twentieth century. The broader imagery intelligence (IMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) disciplines were clearly established between 1940 and 1965.1 In contrast, the concept of ``measurement and signature intelligence’’ (MASINT) as a discipline encompassing a number of distinct collection and analysis activities is far more recent. The term MASINT was ¢rst coined in the 1970s by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), while the United States intelligence community ¢rst classi¢ed MASINT as a formal intelligence discipline in 1986.2 Simultaneous with that classi¢cation, a Measurement and Signature Intelligence Committee, also of¢cially known as the MASINT Committee, was established to serve as a community-wide forum for MASINT issues. In 1992 and 1993 respectively, Director of Central Intelligence and Department of Defense directives addressed the subject of MASINT and established the Central MASINT Of¢ce (CMO) within the DIA to serve as a central day-to-day MASINT authority. In 1998, the DCI upgraded the CMO to a semi-autonomous Central MASINT Organization attached to DIA.3 International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence , 14: 149^192, 2001 Copyright Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis 0885-0607 /01

Undercover in Outer Space: The Creation and Evolution of the NRO, 1960-1963

12.00 + .00

Back to black

In its 2 May 1946 report, Preliminary Design for an Experimental World Circling Spaceship, the Douglas Aircraft Corporation examined the potential value of satellites for scienti¢c and military purposes. Possible military uses included missile guidance, weapons delivery, weather reconnaissance, communications, attack assessment, and ``observation.’’1 A little less than nine years later, on 15 March 1955, the United States Air Force issued General Operational Requirement No. 80, which established a high-priority requirement for an advanced reconnaissance satellite. The document de¢ned the Air Force objective to be the provision of worldwide surveillance or reconnaissance of ``preselected areas of the earth’’ in order to provide warning of ballistic missile attack, collect intelligence to support national intelligence requirements as well as emergency war plans, and to determine ``the intentions of a potential enemy and the status of his warmaking capability.’’2 Over the next ¢ve years the U.S. reconnaissance satellite program evolved in a variety of ways. The Air Force program was ¢rst designated the Advanced Reconnaissance System (ARS), then SENTRY. Management responsibility for SENTRY was transferred from the Air Force to the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), established on 7 February 1958, and then back to the Air Force in late 1959öby which time the program had been renamed SAMOS.3

Old surveillance, new interpretations

0 N FEBRUARY 22, 1885, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER DIRECTING THE DECLASSIFICA· tion of more than 800,000 images produced between 1960 and 1972 by the Corona, Argon, and Lanyard space reconnaissance programs. During the previous administration, President George Bush had accepted the recommendation of Robert Gates, then director of Central Intelligence, and authorized the Defense Department to acknowledge the existence of the National Reconnaissance

Intelligence Secrets and Unauthorized Disclosures: Confronting Some Fundamental Issues

“Revised estimates” of Soviet strategic capabilities often reflect not new data gathered by U.S. intelligence but rather new analysis of earlier data, based on new methodologies or assumptions.