U.S. Army intelligence has published a new field manual (pdf) on how to structure an opposing force (OPFOR) for U.S. military training purposes.
“As a training tool, the OPFOR must be a challenging, uncooperative sparring partner capable of stressing any or all warfighting functions and mission-essential tasks of the U.S. force,” the manual states. See “Opposing Force Organization Guide,” FM 7-100.4, May 2007.
“Put Steven Aftergood in the Brig” is the eye-catching title of what is actually a rather sympathetic blog entry from Commentary Magazine’s Gabriel Schoenfeld on the recent dust-up between the Army and the Federation of American Scientists over our practice of publishing certain Army documents.
Army Threatens Critic Over Blog Policy was Justin Rood’s take at ABC News’ The Blotter.
DNA synthesis and export controls remain the primary regulatory safeguards against de novo production of harmful biological agents, yet governance frameworks lack the situational awareness and enforcement capacity to keep pace with rapidly falling technical barriers.
Called today to speak on behalf of U.S. science and technology, Dr. Jedidah Isler, astrophysicist, educator, strategist, policy-maker, and science communicator, will provide constructive, nonpartisan feedback to the House Committee’s hearing “American Global Competitiveness at 250: Legislative Proposals to Secure U.S. Technology Leadership.”
“Federal data and access to it is not a partisan issue. It is a people issue. Our country cannot achieve greatness without access to the data that measure what we value, who we are, and where we’re heading.”
The United States’ biosecurity governance system is structurally incapable of detecting and responding to certain classes of threats. U.S. biosecurity tools have not kept pace with technological advancements or a changing threat landscape.