<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Secret Sentry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:08:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-123054</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 01:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-123054</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all&quot; title=&quot;Charges Against the N.S.A.&#8217;s Thomas Drake : The New Yorker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Secret Sharer&lt;/a&gt;
Jane Mayer / New Yorker / May 2011

How Thomas Drake, senior executive at the NSA, came to face some of the gravest charges that can be brought against an American citizen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all" title="Charges Against the N.S.A.&#8217;s Thomas Drake : The New Yorker" rel="nofollow">The Secret Sharer</a><br />
Jane Mayer / New Yorker / May 2011</p>
<p>How Thomas Drake, senior executive at the NSA, came to face some of the gravest charges that can be brought against an American citizen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-113127</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-113127</guid>
		<description>Fearing that a powerful U.S. spy agency is listening in, a group of activists and journalists - including Canadian Naomi Klein - has persuaded a New York appeals court that it is reasonable to assume their phone and e-mail conversations are being monitored. The ruling finds that new U.S. surveillance laws are so broad as to compel certain professionals to protect their sensitive conversations. Otherwise, their dialogues with sources - such as radicals, dissidents and alleged terrorists overseas - might well be overheard.
 
   &quot;The plaintiffs have good reason to believe that their communications, in particular, will fall within the scope of the broad surveillance that they can assume the government will conduct,&quot; reads the ruling from the Second Circuit appeals court in New York.
 
   The ruling highlighting growing U.S. &quot;signals-intelligence&quot; - or SigInt - practices stops short of confirming any such spying. But it is a rare judicial nod to fears that laws governing &quot;foreign&quot; surveillance practices have been watered down to the point of permitting disturbing dragnets.
 
   The plaintiffs - which include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and several journalists including Ms. Klein - now have the legal standing to challenge the post-9/11 surveillance laws. A lower court had found their concerns &quot;too abstract&quot; and tossed out the suit.
 
   The American Civil Liberties Union is leading the suit.
 
   The U.S. National Security Agency is the most powerful SigInt body in the world. Its interception technologies are growing increasingly sophisticated even as U.S. spymasters have exploited legal loopholes to permit more spying.

...

The Second Circuit ruling explains that while U.S. citizenry as a whole has little to fear, the plaintiffs are hardly paranoid if they take precautions to safeguard sources. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-court-validates-spying-fears-of-journalists-activists/article1952268/&quot; title=&quot;U.S. court validates spying fears of journalists, activists - The Globe and Mail&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;“Fears of surveillance are by no means based on ‘mere conjecture,’ delusional fantasy or unfounded speculation,” the ruling says.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fearing that a powerful U.S. spy agency is listening in, a group of activists and journalists &#8211; including Canadian Naomi Klein &#8211; has persuaded a New York appeals court that it is reasonable to assume their phone and e-mail conversations are being monitored. The ruling finds that new U.S. surveillance laws are so broad as to compel certain professionals to protect their sensitive conversations. Otherwise, their dialogues with sources &#8211; such as radicals, dissidents and alleged terrorists overseas &#8211; might well be overheard.</p>
<p>   &#8220;The plaintiffs have good reason to believe that their communications, in particular, will fall within the scope of the broad surveillance that they can assume the government will conduct,&#8221; reads the ruling from the Second Circuit appeals court in New York.</p>
<p>   The ruling highlighting growing U.S. &#8220;signals-intelligence&#8221; &#8211; or SigInt &#8211; practices stops short of confirming any such spying. But it is a rare judicial nod to fears that laws governing &#8220;foreign&#8221; surveillance practices have been watered down to the point of permitting disturbing dragnets.</p>
<p>   The plaintiffs &#8211; which include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and several journalists including Ms. Klein &#8211; now have the legal standing to challenge the post-9/11 surveillance laws. A lower court had found their concerns &#8220;too abstract&#8221; and tossed out the suit.</p>
<p>   The American Civil Liberties Union is leading the suit.</p>
<p>   The U.S. National Security Agency is the most powerful SigInt body in the world. Its interception technologies are growing increasingly sophisticated even as U.S. spymasters have exploited legal loopholes to permit more spying.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>The Second Circuit ruling explains that while U.S. citizenry as a whole has little to fear, the plaintiffs are hardly paranoid if they take precautions to safeguard sources. <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-court-validates-spying-fears-of-journalists-activists/article1952268/" title="U.S. court validates spying fears of journalists, activists - The Globe and Mail" rel="nofollow">“Fears of surveillance are by no means based on ‘mere conjecture,’ delusional fantasy or unfounded speculation,” the ruling says.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GCHQ: The Uncensored Story of Britain&#8217;s Most Secret Intelligence Agency</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-101175</link>
		<dc:creator>GCHQ: The Uncensored Story of Britain&#8217;s Most Secret Intelligence Agency</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-101175</guid>
		<description>[...] book is similar in purpose to Matthew Aid&#8217;s The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National Security Agency, though I think Aldrich&#8217;s book is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] book is similar in purpose to Matthew Aid&#8217;s The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National Security Agency, though I think Aldrich&#8217;s book is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-93229</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-93229</guid>
		<description>&quot;In the clusters of Top Secret America, a company lanyard attached to a digital smart card is often the only clue to a job location. Work is not discussed. Neither are deployments. Debate about the role of intelligence in protecting the country occurs only when something goes wrong and the government investigates, or when an unauthorized disclosure of classified information turns into news.

The existence of these clusters is so little known that most people don&#039;t realize when they&#039;re nearing the epicenter of Fort Meade&#039;s, even when the GPS on their car dashboard suddenly begins giving incorrect directions, trapping the driver in a series of U-turns, because the government is jamming all nearby signals.

Once this happens, it means that ground zero - the National Security Agency - is close by. But it&#039;s not easy to tell where. Trees, walls and a sloping landscape obscure the NSA&#039;s presence from most vantage points, and concrete barriers, fortified guard posts and warning signs stop those without authorization from entering the grounds of the largest intelligence agency in the United States.

Beyond all those obstacles loom huge buildings with row after row of opaque, blast-resistant windows, and behind those are an estimated 30,000 people, many of them reading, listening to and analyzing an endless flood of intercepted conversations 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

From the road, it&#039;s impossible to tell how large the NSA has become, even though its buildings occupy 6.3 million square feet - about the size of the Pentagon - and are surrounded by 112 acres of parking spaces. As massive as that might seem, documents indicate that the NSA is only going to get bigger: 10,000 more workers over the next 15 years; $2 billion to pay for just the first phase of expansion; an overall increase in size that will bring its building space throughout the Fort Meade cluster to nearly 14 million square feet.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/secrets-next-door/print/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The NSA headquarters sits on the Fort Meade Army base, which hosts 80 government tenants in all, including several large intelligence organizations.&lt;/a&gt;

Together, they inject $10 billion from paychecks and contracts into the region&#039;s economy every year - a figure that helps explain the rest of the Fort Meade cluster, which fans out about 10 miles in every direction.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In the clusters of Top Secret America, a company lanyard attached to a digital smart card is often the only clue to a job location. Work is not discussed. Neither are deployments. Debate about the role of intelligence in protecting the country occurs only when something goes wrong and the government investigates, or when an unauthorized disclosure of classified information turns into news.</p>
<p>The existence of these clusters is so little known that most people don&#8217;t realize when they&#8217;re nearing the epicenter of Fort Meade&#8217;s, even when the GPS on their car dashboard suddenly begins giving incorrect directions, trapping the driver in a series of U-turns, because the government is jamming all nearby signals.</p>
<p>Once this happens, it means that ground zero &#8211; the National Security Agency &#8211; is close by. But it&#8217;s not easy to tell where. Trees, walls and a sloping landscape obscure the NSA&#8217;s presence from most vantage points, and concrete barriers, fortified guard posts and warning signs stop those without authorization from entering the grounds of the largest intelligence agency in the United States.</p>
<p>Beyond all those obstacles loom huge buildings with row after row of opaque, blast-resistant windows, and behind those are an estimated 30,000 people, many of them reading, listening to and analyzing an endless flood of intercepted conversations 24 hours a day, seven days a week.</p>
<p>From the road, it&#8217;s impossible to tell how large the NSA has become, even though its buildings occupy 6.3 million square feet &#8211; about the size of the Pentagon &#8211; and are surrounded by 112 acres of parking spaces. As massive as that might seem, documents indicate that the NSA is only going to get bigger: 10,000 more workers over the next 15 years; $2 billion to pay for just the first phase of expansion; an overall increase in size that will bring its building space throughout the Fort Meade cluster to nearly 14 million square feet.</p>
<p><a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/secrets-next-door/print/" rel="nofollow">The NSA headquarters sits on the Fort Meade Army base, which hosts 80 government tenants in all, including several large intelligence organizations.</a></p>
<p>Together, they inject $10 billion from paychecks and contracts into the region&#8217;s economy every year &#8211; a figure that helps explain the rest of the Fort Meade cluster, which fans out about 10 miles in every direction.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-93228</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:12:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-93228</guid>
		<description>&quot;The National Security Agency, which conducts worldwide electronic surveillance, &lt;a href=&quot;http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/national-security-inc/print/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;hires private firms to come up with most of its technological innovations&lt;/a&gt;. The NSA used to work with a small stable of firms; now it works with at least 484 and is actively recruiting more.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The National Security Agency, which conducts worldwide electronic surveillance, <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/national-security-inc/print/" rel="nofollow">hires private firms to come up with most of its technological innovations</a>. The NSA used to work with a small stable of firms; now it works with at least 484 and is actively recruiting more.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James M. Van Orden</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-90055</link>
		<dc:creator>James M. Van Orden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 01:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-90055</guid>
		<description>The text and titles of the vignettes appear disjointed because the book is written in code; the Morticia quote should have been a &quot;dead&quot; giveaway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The text and titles of the vignettes appear disjointed because the book is written in code; the Morticia quote should have been a &#8220;dead&#8221; giveaway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-87408</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-87408</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/09/0158205/NSA-Still-Ahead-In-Crypto-But-Not-By-Much&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NSA Still Ahead In Crypto, But Not By Much&lt;/a&gt;

&quot;Network World summarizes an RSA Conference panel discussion in which former NSA technical director Brian Snow said that cryptographers for the NSA have been losing ground to their counterparts in universities and commercial security vendors for 20 years, but still maintain the upper hand in the sophistication of their crypto schemes and in their ability to decrypt. &#039;I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much — a handful of years,&#039; says Snow. &#039;I think we&#039;ve got the edge still.&#039; Snow added that that in the 1980s there was a huge gap between what the NSA could do and what commercial encryption technology was capable of. &#039;Now we are very close together and moving very slowly forward in a mature field.&#039; The NSA has one key advantage (besides their deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes): &#039;We cheat. We get to read what [academics] publish. We do not publish what we research,&#039; he said. Snow&#039;s claim of NSA superiority seemed to rankle some members on the panel. Adi Shamir, the &quot;S&quot; in the RSA encryption algorithm. said that when the titles of papers in NSA technical journals were declassified up to 1983, none of them included public key encryption; &#039;That demonstrates that NSA was behind,&#039; said Shamir. Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don&#039;t necessarily use the same terms for them.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/09/0158205/NSA-Still-Ahead-In-Crypto-But-Not-By-Much" rel="nofollow">NSA Still Ahead In Crypto, But Not By Much</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Network World summarizes an RSA Conference panel discussion in which former NSA technical director Brian Snow said that cryptographers for the NSA have been losing ground to their counterparts in universities and commercial security vendors for 20 years, but still maintain the upper hand in the sophistication of their crypto schemes and in their ability to decrypt. &#8216;I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much — a handful of years,&#8217; says Snow. &#8216;I think we&#8217;ve got the edge still.&#8217; Snow added that that in the 1980s there was a huge gap between what the NSA could do and what commercial encryption technology was capable of. &#8216;Now we are very close together and moving very slowly forward in a mature field.&#8217; The NSA has one key advantage (besides their deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes): &#8216;We cheat. We get to read what [academics] publish. We do not publish what we research,&#8217; he said. Snow&#8217;s claim of NSA superiority seemed to rankle some members on the panel. Adi Shamir, the &#8220;S&#8221; in the RSA encryption algorithm. said that when the titles of papers in NSA technical journals were declassified up to 1983, none of them included public key encryption; &#8216;That demonstrates that NSA was behind,&#8217; said Shamir. Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don&#8217;t necessarily use the same terms for them.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-86437</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-86437</guid>
		<description>&quot;The Washington Post reported on Thursday that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20100204_us_tightens_european_alliances_and_internet_security&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the U.S. National Security Administration (NSA) -- the U.S. intelligence agency specializing in cryptology -- plans to partner with U.S. Internet company Google&lt;/a&gt;. The deal is still in the works, but the report -- the first official and publicly acknowledged cooperation between the two entities -- comes in the wake of what appears to have been a major breach of Google&#039;s security, with hacking attempts that were apparently able to deeply penetrate Google&#039;s defenses. Google believes the attacks emanated from China.

The NSA-Google partnership is a natural one. Google is the world&#039;s largest search engine and the largest information aggregate. Conversely, the NSA is the world&#039;s largest electronic data analysis organization. Together they boast an enormous capacity to monitor and influence the Internet. In the face of cyber threats, Google stands to benefit a great deal from the NSA&#039;s capacity to process information. The NSA can help Google analyze enormous amounts of data to diagnose security breaches and head off future assaults.

The partnership is equally important for the United States. Cyberspace joins with sea and space in what has now been collectively termed the &quot;global commons.&quot; But cyberspace presents new challenges for ensuring the same sort of freedom of action the United States has come to enjoy on the high seas. In a world where information technology drives business and facilitates trade, a stable, functional and reliable cyberspace is a critical national security issue.

For countries around the world, this possible partnership will be seen as both a blessing and a concern. The United States has the most technological and financial resources to dedicate to the stability of Internet communication. And the Internet is as critical to most countries -- particularly developed countries -- as it is for the United States.

The converse, of course, is that countries such as China will worry about the security implications of such a powerful partnership between Google and the U.S. intelligence community. And while many have decried the possibility that the NSA would gain unprecedented access to information on domestic users, the NSA is specifically designed to target international data -- making this agreement much more important for foreign governments than for domestic actors.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Washington Post reported on Thursday that <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20100204_us_tightens_european_alliances_and_internet_security" rel="nofollow">the U.S. National Security Administration (NSA) &#8212; the U.S. intelligence agency specializing in cryptology &#8212; plans to partner with U.S. Internet company Google</a>. The deal is still in the works, but the report &#8212; the first official and publicly acknowledged cooperation between the two entities &#8212; comes in the wake of what appears to have been a major breach of Google&#8217;s security, with hacking attempts that were apparently able to deeply penetrate Google&#8217;s defenses. Google believes the attacks emanated from China.</p>
<p>The NSA-Google partnership is a natural one. Google is the world&#8217;s largest search engine and the largest information aggregate. Conversely, the NSA is the world&#8217;s largest electronic data analysis organization. Together they boast an enormous capacity to monitor and influence the Internet. In the face of cyber threats, Google stands to benefit a great deal from the NSA&#8217;s capacity to process information. The NSA can help Google analyze enormous amounts of data to diagnose security breaches and head off future assaults.</p>
<p>The partnership is equally important for the United States. Cyberspace joins with sea and space in what has now been collectively termed the &#8220;global commons.&#8221; But cyberspace presents new challenges for ensuring the same sort of freedom of action the United States has come to enjoy on the high seas. In a world where information technology drives business and facilitates trade, a stable, functional and reliable cyberspace is a critical national security issue.</p>
<p>For countries around the world, this possible partnership will be seen as both a blessing and a concern. The United States has the most technological and financial resources to dedicate to the stability of Internet communication. And the Internet is as critical to most countries &#8212; particularly developed countries &#8212; as it is for the United States.</p>
<p>The converse, of course, is that countries such as China will worry about the security implications of such a powerful partnership between Google and the U.S. intelligence community. And while many have decried the possibility that the NSA would gain unprecedented access to information on domestic users, the NSA is specifically designed to target international data &#8212; making this agreement much more important for foreign governments than for domestic actors.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-83424</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-83424</guid>
		<description>Sometimes, it seems like history written while feelings are still fresh has a kind of validity that vanishes with enough time and distance. Compare our thinking on the Rwandan genocide, Holocaust, and ancient historical massacres, for instance. Who today really feels appalled by Genghis Khan, the sacking of Carthage, etc?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sometimes, it seems like history written while feelings are still fresh has a kind of validity that vanishes with enough time and distance. Compare our thinking on the Rwandan genocide, Holocaust, and ancient historical massacres, for instance. Who today really feels appalled by Genghis Khan, the sacking of Carthage, etc?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R.K.</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-83412</link>
		<dc:creator>R.K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-83412</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;While there are certainly grounds for criticizing both, it is arguably the role of a historian to provide facts and analysis, rather than moral or legal judgments. &lt;/em&gt;

The further back something is in the past, the easier it is to analyze it in an accurate and dispassionate way. The old joke about it being too early to say what the effects of the French Revolution are seems appropriate here. The passage of time not only provides more information with which to judge consequences. It also creates emotional distance compatible with objectie thinking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>While there are certainly grounds for criticizing both, it is arguably the role of a historian to provide facts and analysis, rather than moral or legal judgments. </em></p>
<p>The further back something is in the past, the easier it is to analyze it in an accurate and dispassionate way. The old joke about it being too early to say what the effects of the French Revolution are seems appropriate here. The passage of time not only provides more information with which to judge consequences. It also creates emotional distance compatible with objectie thinking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-83401</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-83401</guid>
		<description>The marine barracks bomb was apparently equivalent to 20,000 tonnes of TNT.

At least, that is the number Aid cites. The Wikipedia page uses the far lower figure of 5.4 tonnes of TNT.

Aid&#039;s figure might be an error.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The marine barracks bomb was apparently equivalent to 20,000 tonnes of TNT.</p>
<p>At least, that is the number Aid cites. The Wikipedia page uses the far lower figure of 5.4 tonnes of TNT.</p>
<p>Aid&#8217;s figure might be an error.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: coyote</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/02/the-secret-sentry/#comment-83400</link>
		<dc:creator>coyote</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6642#comment-83400</guid>
		<description>As a minor historical coda to your side-comment on the size of the marine barracks bombing - the 1964 &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=AD0470369&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Operation Snowball&lt;/A&gt; detonation at CFB Suffield, at 5oo tons of TNT, was probably also larger...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a minor historical coda to your side-comment on the size of the marine barracks bombing &#8211; the 1964 <a HREF="http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=AD0470369" rel="nofollow">Operation Snowball</a> detonation at CFB Suffield, at 5oo tons of TNT, was probably also larger&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

