Contracting Adversary Aircraft, and More from CRS
The US Air Force and Navy might choose to train their fighter pilots in simulations using enemy aircraft that are flown by contractors, the Congressional Research Service said in a new brief.
“Particularly in the case of the Air Force, which has increasingly publicized a shortage of pilots, using contractors to provide adversary air may free up experienced uniformed pilots for other duties,” CRS said. Doing so would also “offer U.S. pilots the opportunity to fly against a diversity of aircraft types without the overhead and expense required to maintain a fleet of planes not otherwise in inventory.” See Contracting the Adversary, CRS Insight, November 16, 2017.
Other new or updated products of the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Zimbabwe: A Military-Compelled Transition?, CRS Insight, November 16, 2017
Private Flood Insurance and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), CRS Insight, updated November 17, 2017
The Individual Mandate for Health Insurance Coverage: In Brief, updated November 16, 2017
Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), CRS Insight, November 17, 2017
Monuments and Memorials Authorized and Completed Under the Commemorative Works Act in the District of Columbia, updated November 17, 2017
Monuments and Memorials Authorized Under the Commemorative Works Act in the District of Columbia: Current Development of In-Progress and Lapsed Works, updated November 17, 2017
OPEC and Non-OPEC Crude Oil Production Agreement: Compliance Status, CRS Insight, November 16, 2017
About 86% of Colorado’s water is used for agriculture, but only about 30-60% of that water actually reaches crops. Conveyance efficiency through canal modernization is a powerful drought resilience and water saving strategy with proven technical feasibility.
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”