democracyarsenal.org Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the democracyarsenal.org

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host democracyarsenal.org. Currently, hosted in United States and its service provider is Nationalnet Managed Services .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

december 03, 2013 can the f-35 replace the a-10? posted by the editors by nickolai sukharev one of the big decisions the united states air force has considered over the last few months is whether to retire the a-10 thunderbolt ii fleet as a cost saving measure while developing and procuring the f-35a lightening ii. given the budget control act caps on pentagon spending and the need to better allocate funds, officials have expressed their preference to prioritize multi-mission platforms in the inventory. but the problem is that the f-35a is not a replacement for the a-10’s close air support. the reason is simple: it lacks comparable capabilities despite a higher operating cost. given the constrained budgetary environment, the comparative cost to maintain and operate the two aircraft should be a decisive consideration. the a-10 is a significantly cheaper aircraft to maintain, costing about $17,564 per flight hour . in contrast, the f-35a nearly doubles that with a hefty $35,200 per flight hour . accounting for this difference are facts like the a-10’s 1:5 fuel consumption ratio . to put that into monetary context, the doe’s energy information administration estimates that current aviation jet fuel prices average at approximately $2.87 per gallon. the a-10 carries approximately (11,000 pounds) of internal fuel compared to the f-35a’s (18,250 pounds) . using a conversion calculator we can convert fluid weight into gallons. that comes out to approximately 1,647 gallons for the a-10, and 2,733 gallons for the f-35a. by multiplying the gallons by the average price, the fuel cost for a mission requiring a full tank would be $4,726.89 for the a-10 while the f-35a would be an astounding $7,843.71. these costs render it financially impractical for the f-35a to perform close air support operations of the a-10 in a tight fiscal environment. not only is the f-35a more costly to operate, but also it buys less close air support capability. the a-10 was designed from the start to be a close air support platform as a replacement for the vietnam era a-1 skyraiders. close air support heavily depends on the aircraft’s loiter time. loiter time is defined as the ability to cruise at slow speeds over a small area. loiter range is, in part the function of range – the greater the range, the longer it can spend over an area of interest, where ground support may be needed. compared to the f-35a, which has a range of about 1,200 nautical miles , the a-10 out flies its potential successor by about twice the distance, reaching a distance of 2,240nm . that additional range allows the a-10 to loiter above areas of battlefield activity further from its takeoff origin without the need to refuel. continue reading "can the f-35 replace the a-10?" » december 03, 2013 at 09:34 am | permalink | comments (0) october 16, 2013 after geneva talks a consensus on moving forward posted by the editors by homa hassan the two-day round of p5+1 negotiations with iran just concluded in geneva and western diplomats are carefully reviewing a detailed proposal presented by iran. as this proposal is being reviewed ahead of the follow-on meetings in november it is important to look at what the realistic prospects of a deal will look like. going into this week’s talks, a number of commentaries came out attempting to set negotiations up for failure. however, it is widely agreed that a negotiated solution to iran’s controversial nuclear program is the best way to achieve a sustainable solution and a recent survey of reports and recommendations from bipartisan think tanks and high-level experts demonstrates a broad consensus on how to approach negotiations and overall policy towards iran. on sunday, senator mark kirk (r-il) wrote in the british paper the telegraph , “my colleagues in the us senate and i…will not accept any level of uranium enrichment on iranian soil. we will not accept an iranian plutonium reactor. and unless we see iran take immediate steps to comply with all its security council obligations, we will move forward with a new round of sanctions targeting all remaining iranian revenue and reserves.” across the board, however, experts agree that it is unrealistic and infeasible to expect a permanent end to iranian enrichment. the body of literature indicates that after international concerns are resolved through rounds of negotiations, future enrichment will need strict iaea supervision. at the same time, the authors encourage exchanging recognition for the right to enrich for a limit on the extent of enrichment, as well as discussing the cost-benefit angles of iran’s nuclear policies, facilities, and security. tantamount to moving negotiations forward, the reports say that hostile rhetoric needs to take a backseat during opening of the negotiation process. important to keep in mind is that negotiations do not mean appeasement. if sanctions have thus far been working well enough to commence negotiations again, their value has provided the leverage most useful as a preventative tool. the experts agree that forgoing new sanctions and creating a plan to gradually lift them with verifiable cooperation allows sanctions to be among the negotiators’ most useful bargaining chips. they also note that new sanctions could be counterproductive and prevent an amenable deal for the west. the reports further note that a more positive reaffirmation of commitment to the region and strengthening of security and diplomatic ties during negotiations with iran serve to more adequately bolster u.s. interests, regardless of iran’s nuclear future. on the military options, ambassadors eric edelman and dennis ross, co-chairs of the jewish institute for national security affairs, put out a report over the long weekend, saying “[the u.s.] should also make clear the alternatives to an acceptable deal are enhanced sanctions that could collapse iran's economy and/or a u.s. military strike.” echoing the sentiment yesterday, senator marco rubio (r-fl) published an op-ed for usa today in which he wrote “[a]t some point, congress should consider making it very clear that if it becomes necessary, the united states reserves the right to take military action to prevent iran from continuing to advance its nuclear weapons program.” the body of expert literature indicates that while the p5+1 have pursued parallel diplomatic and pressure tracks, it is clear that neither approach on their own can induce desirable or sustainable consequences. they assert that while keeping a credible and well thought-out military plan on file is important, ramping up the threat of military force could be extremely costly in a number of ways. any military operation in a country with the geographic size and location of iran would not be enough to dash iranian nuclear aspirations, but could easily rock an already volatile geopolitical region and destroy international support that has taken years, if not decades, to form. even in the event that the international community fails to prevent iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, the authors assert that predefined contours of a military option as a last resort necessitate multilateral and long-term strategies to resolve the nuclear impasse. to see the full set of options, refer to the matrix on addressing iran’s nuclear program: recommendations -- ms. hassan is a herbert scoville peace fellow at the national security network october 16, 2013 at 02:15 pm | permalink | comments (0) october 15, 2013 tpp, ttip and getting america's competitiveness back on track posted by bill r. french by marcela heywood last week’s asia-pacific economic cooperation summit in bali, indonesia marked further progress for the trans-pacific partnership (tpp) and set an ambitious goal to finish negotiations by the end of the year. although the u.s. government shutdown – and president obama’s absence in bali – did not hinder the trade talks, it did call america’s credibility into question. government shutdown could threaten both tpp and

URL analysis for democracyarsenal.org

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/potpourri/
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/proliferation/
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/04/questions-on-the-brothers-tsarnaev-.html#trackback
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/03/post-mortem-on-republican-foreign-policy.html#trackback
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/09/beware-the-g-20-summit-syria-freak-out.html#comments
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/03/nuclear-deterrence-national-security-and-budgetary-savings.html#trackback
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/intelligence/
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/progressive_strategy/
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/04/country-see-country-do-nonproliferation-edition.html#comments
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/08/on-the-importance-of-relationships-the-artie-fufkin-doctrine.html#comments
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/03/fear-of-climate-change-commitment-and-other-indian-perspectives.html#trackback
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/12/index.html
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/03/progress-and-warnings-on-us-africa-security-cooperation-.html#comments
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2013/03/nuclear-deterrence-national-security-and-budgetary-savings.html
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/latin_america/
telegraph.co.uk
bbc.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: DEMOCRACYARSENAL.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D105842896-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.whois.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2018-05-06T02:13:01Z
Creation Date: 2005-03-07T16:26:45Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-03-07T16:26:45Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Registrant Organization: Xedoc Holding, SA
Registrant State/Province: Luxembourg
Registrant Country: LU
Name Server: NS2.NATIONAL-NET.COM
Name Server: NS1.NATIONAL-NET.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form https://www.icann.org/wicf/)
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-08-26T08:39:00Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

Access to Public Interest Registry WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

The Registrar of Record identified in this output may have an RDDS service that can be queried for additional information on how to contact the Registrant, Admin, or Tech contact of the queried domain name.

  REFERRER http://www.pir.org/

  REGISTRAR Public Interest Registry

SERVERS

  SERVER org.whois-servers.net

  ARGS democracyarsenal.org

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME democracyarsenal.org

  HANDLE D105842896-LROR

  CREATED 2005-07-03

STATUS
clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS2.NATIONAL-NET.COM 216.201.87.28

  NS1.NATIONAL-NET.COM 216.201.81.254

OWNER

  ORGANIZATION Xedoc Holding, SA

ADDRESS

  STATE Luxembourg

  COUNTRY LU

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .