Compare And Contrast Tcsec And Cc Information Technology Essay

Compare And Contrast Tcsec And Cc Information Technology Essay To evaluate a computer system or product to see it meets the security requirements based on the information security evaluation standards. Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) was the first computer security evaluation standard which was published by the U.S. defense department in1985. TCSEC influenced other European countries and very soon some countries based on TCSEC to develop their own security evaluation standards. In 1996, America combined with 5 European countries (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands and Canada) and NSA (National Security Agency) and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) developed a new criterion which was called Common Criteria (CC). In 1999 Common Criteria (CC) was recognized by ISO and named ISO/IEC 15408-1999. In this essay TCSEC and CC will be discussed, compared and contrasted to find out the similarities and differences and the strength of CC will be indicated. The answers for the topic are based on research on relevant articles and journals and most of the resources are from the internet. The materials are then analyzed and discussed. The outline of the report is as follows: Introduction- brief description of the topic. Background- explanation of TCSEC and CC. Compare and contrast the two standards Describe the similarities and differences between the two standards and state the advantages of CC. Some journals, articles and books are used in this report which can be found in the references. Background This session discusses TCSEC with the evaluation class of TCSEC. And also describes the CC and evaluation of assurance level of CC and the evaluation process. TCSEC Evaluation Class CC- Assurances Levels D Lowest protections EAL1 Functionally tested C1 Discretionary Protection EAL2 Structurally tested C2 Controlled Access Protection EAL3 Methodically tested checked B1 Labeled Security Protection EAL4 Methodically designed, tested, reviewed B2 Structured Protection EAL5 Semi-formally designed and tested B3 Security Domains EAL6 Semi-formally verified design and tested A1 Verified Protection EAL7 Formally verified design and tested Table 1- Evaluation Class of TCSEC and Evaluation Assurances Level CC TCSEC is commonly called the Orange Book (the cover of book is orange). TCSEC has 4 divisions and 7 evaluation classes. Each class contains security requirements and it is used to determine the level of trust of a computing system. The divisions of TCSEC are A, B, C, D and the seven evaluation classes are: D (lowest), C1, C2, B1, B2, B3 and A1 (highest). A is more secure than D, and 2 is more secure than 1. (See Table 1) Level D: non-secure system Level D only contains D1 evaluation class. D1 is the lowest protections and only provides security protection for file and user. Level D can be applied to any system which has been evaluated but did not meet the higher evaluation class requirements. Level C: Discretionary protection Level C provides audit trial protection and Level C includes C1 and C2.C1 is discretionary security protection and its class is lower in Level C. C1 provides discretionary access control and it has the responsibility for Identification and authentication. C2 has all the security features of C1 and has the function of audit trail and access protection. C2 requires single- user log-in with password and an audit trail system. C2 works through log-in process, security event and source isolation to increase access. Level B: Mandatory Control. There are 3 classes in Level B and they are B1, B2 and B3.B1 has all the requirements of C2 and it also has some new requirements: each object has a label which is under system control. It uses sensitivity labels as a basis of all the access control and labels the object which will import to the system. When the system administrator adds a new communication channel or I/O mechanism, he has to manually assign security level to the channel and mechanism. The system uses user password to determine the user access level and it also uses audit to record any unauthorized access [13]. B2 has all the requirements of B1. Besides that, the B2 administrator must have clear and documentation style of security policy for trusted computing base. B2 has some new security requirements: system must immediately inform any changes between user and associated network, only user is able to do initial communication in the trusted path and the trusted computer base supports inde pendent administrator and operator. B3 has all the requirements of B2. But B3 has stronger ability to monitor access and anti-interference. B3 system has to set the security of the administrator. The new security requirements for B3 are: provide a readable security list, some objects are not allowed for certain users to access, the system has to provide a description of the users and to identify user before any operation and the trusted computing base establishes security audit trail for each labeled object [13]. Level A has the highest security. Level A only has A1 class. A1 is similar to B3. A1has the obvious features a developer of system must adopt for a formal design specification to analyze a system. After analysis, the developer has to use verification technology to ensure that the system meets the design specifications. The entire installation operation must be done by the system administrator and each step has to provide formal documentation. In TCSEC, to identify the security and to give some assurance to the system, it has to meet the security requirements [14]. The TCSEC was replaced by CC. CC is a framework of mutually recognized evaluation criteria and it contains 3 parts: security model, security functional requirements and security assurance requirements. Security assurance components are the basis for the security assurance requirements and it expresses in Protection Profile (PP) or Security Target (ST) [15]. A Protection Profile is the security requirements of customers and a company of users for a class of Targets of Evaluation (TOE) [15]. A PP uses a template independently to express security requirement. This is useful when implementing a product line or a family of related products [7]. Protection Profile copy TCSEC security requirements of C2 and B1. Protection Profile include: a template of commercial security profile, Firewall profiles which use for packet filters and application gateways, Smart card profiles, Database profile and a role which is based on control profile [16]. A Security Target consists of a collection of security requirements and used to evaluate computer system or product [7]. Figure 1 The PP/ST specification framework [7] Evaluation is that use defined criteria to evaluate a computer system or IT product [16]. Figure 1 shows specification framework to the Targets of Evaluation. The Common Criteria evaluation process starts from identifying a TOE (Target of Evaluation), and then input an ST which describes the security functions of the TOE [16], the example of TOE is computer system or product, To see if the result of the system is secure, it should meet a set of security requirements or protection profile [7]. Common Criteria provides a set of Evaluation Assurance Levels (EAL) from EAL1 (lowest) to EAL7 (highest) and it will be awarded to products and system upon successful completion of evaluation (see Table 1). The Common Criteria is absorbed by ISO (NO. 15408) EAL1- Functionally tested. For the correct operation of EAL1, it requires a certain confidence of occasion. This situation is of the view that the security threats are not serious [7]. EAL1 provide the evidence of testing and its documentation. EAL2- Structurally tested. In the delivery of the design information and test results, EAL2 requires the developer collaboration. But do not spend too much energy beyond the good commercial operation of consistency. EAL3- Methodically tested checked. Without a lot of changes on the premise of reasonable development practices, it allows a conscientious developer to obtain maximum assurance during the design phase from the correct security engineering. EAL4- Methodically designed, tested, reviewed. It allows the developers to obtain maximum guarantee from the correct security engineering, the security engineering is based on good and strict commercial development practice. This development practice does not need much professional knowledge, skills or other resources. In the rational economic conditions, and to renovate an existing production line, EAL can achieve the highest level of result [7]. EAL5- Semi-formally designed and tested. It enables the developers to obtain maximum security from the security engineering. The security engineering is based on a strictly commercial development practice. It relies on the appropriate application of professional safety engineering technology for support. EAL6- Semi-formally verified design and tested. It enables the developers to gain a high level of certification through the application of safety engineering technology and strict development environment, and. This is to produce a costly TOE to protect high-value assets against major risks [16]. EAL7- Formally verified design and tested. It is applicable to safe TOE development and it applies to places where the risk is very high, or high value assets that worth higher expenses. In this session discussed TCSEC and CC, an explained evaluation class of TCSEC, evaluation assurance level of CC and the evaluation process. Those discussions are very important that helps to find out the similarities and difference of TCSEC and CC. Next session, TCSEC and CC will be compared and contrasted based on the above discussion. Compare and contrast TCSEC and CC This session will discuss the similarities and differences between the security standards based on the above description on TCSEC and CC. It will also state the strength of CC and to explain why CC is a relatively successful security evaluation standard. Similarities Even though TCSEC has been replaced by CC, they still have some similarities. Both of them are security evaluation standard and evaluate computer system by security level classification and each level has security requirements. Both of them provide confidentiality security functionality and evaluate Computer Operation System. Differences Although CC has some similarities as TCSEC, but both of them are different. TSCEC is only used in U.S. In the beginning, it was proposed that TCSEC was to focus on independent computer system and it suited evaluation of military operating system. TCSEC does not involve security criteria for open system and it is the criteria for static model. TSCEC just considered protecting system owner and operator but did not cover user security area especially for the security of telecommunication system user. And also only considered confidentiality for documents of system owner and it did not address integrity and availability. From Table 1 we see that the evaluation of TCSEC is mix security and functionality. So if any hardware of software is changed, it will start to evaluate the system again. But CC is recognized by ISO organization and it applies to nations. Compared CC with TCSEC, CC is more complete. Common Criteria is not only focus on operating system but also for Network and Database. Common Criteria involve security criteria for open system and the criteria for dynamic model. CC keeps system confidentiality, availability and integrity through TOEs security specifications. CC has distinguished security and functionality, any change does not affect the evaluation. The evaluation process of both also is different. TCSEC checks system to see if it is secure by using the security requirements which is classified by evaluation class. In a Common Criteria evaluation, use Common Criteria to evaluate the product or computer system. The evaluation stages are: Protection Profile evaluation, Security Targets evaluation, TOE evaluation and Assurance maintenance.CC evaluates system starting from identifying a TOE, and then developing a set of criteria to the TOE for evaluation. For each step, detailed information will be added. To get to know if the system is secure, it should meet a set of security criteria or protection profile. Finally TCSEC has been substituted by CC. That means TCSEC was abandoned but CC is still the ongoing security evaluation standard. The advantages of CC Form the above comparison of the differences between TCSEC and CC, we can point out that CC is a relatively successful security evaluation standard because CC has some advantages. CC is an international security standard and many countries acknowledge the testing result. CC is absorbed in security objectives and the related threats and the evaluation process help to enhance confidentiality, availability and integrity of the system. CC provides a set of security criteria in detail and the criteria details are easily understood by customer and supplier. Customer can use them to determine the security level of the products and also to find out their own security requirements. So that supplier can design product for them and also use them to identify their product or system security features. Customer can trust the evaluation because the testing is done independently and not by the supplier. In this session, the similarities and differences between TCSEC and CC have been discussed and after comparison, the advantages of CC have been indicated. Conclusion To sum up, through the discussion of the evaluation process and assurance level of TCSEC and CC, we found out the similarities and differences between the two standards and also the advantages of CC. TCSEC is firstly a security standard and it develops 4 levels and 7 evaluation classes. Each evaluation class contains security requirements and using the requirements it will help to identify the security level of the system or product. TCSEC has provided identification and authentication for user to access the system document and also to provide audit trial and access protection. TCSEC evaluates system or products by checking security requirements to see if the system meets them. TCSEC has been replaced by CC and CC is an international security evaluation standard. CC provides Protection Profiles and Security Targets which are documents for specifying security requirements. [2] CC has 7 Evaluation assurance levels. Because CC came from TCSEC, they have some similarities but actually they are quite different. TCSEC only applies to operation system and it focuses on the demand of confidentiality. CC has full description of security mode, security concepts and security functionality. Compared with TCSEC, CC has some advantages. The testing result is accepted by nations, supplier can design product for customer based on their requirements. CC keeps system confidentiality, availability and integrity. After comparison we can say that CC is relatively a successful security evaluation standard.

The Role Of The Learner In His Development Education Essay

In this essay I will be comparing two different theories and looking at how they contrast against each other when studied and applied towards the function of the scholar. The country we will be looking at in peculiar is development, and how these theories create two opposing political orientations that suggest separate waies the scholar takes. The first theory I will discourse is Behaviourism which views the function of the scholar as a inactive and ductile signifier that is the consequence of the environments input ( Bee, H. & A ; Boyd, D. , 2010 ) . Behaviourism classifies most actions as behavior, such as feeling or thought, therefore opening them up to observation of alteration. Behaviorists believe we learn through a rewarding procedure that emphasises our behavior and whether or non it was right ( Bee, H. & A ; Boyd, D. , 2010 ) . Not needfully opposing the first theory but my 2nd theory of Constructivism takes a different stance on how it perceives the scholar. Alternatively o f being a inactive being, constructivists feel the scholar plays an active function in his/her ‘s development. This is possible, as the theory suggests that we create different systems to get the better of day-to-day experiences and thenceforth an understanding upon contemplation ( Woolfolk, A. , Hughes, M. , 2008 ) . It is besides implied that we learn through a more synergistic attack, which includes job resolution ( Woolfolk, A. , Hughes, M. , 2008 ) . From both of these theories I will pull out the thoughts that form either a inactive or active attack and use those properties to compare the two. Within Behaviourism there are two immediate different types of conditioning. There is Classical conditioning and Operant conditioning. Classical conditioning believes larning takes topographic point between a stimulation and a response. This is a automatic response which in bend topographic points the environment in control – rendering the scholar as inactive, whereas operant conditioning expressions at behavior specifically and its links between different results. This means that through variable behaviors the scholar can derive different results – leting the scholar a grade of pick, but still inactive to the fact that the scholar can merely move upon an event driven by his/her ‘s environment ( Bee, H. & A ; Boyd, D. , 2010 ) . This is non a split within the theory, but instead it is two different signifiers of behaviorism. Even though we have these two separate thoughts, we can still see a big similarity that bonds them together, due to the environment itself st ill keeping a certain sum of control in the scholar ‘s development. This theory utilises the thought that human existences are an 'empty vas ‘ or in the words of John Locke â€Å" Tabula Rasa † ( A Blank Slate ) that is waiting to be filled by experience and cognition ( Woolfolk, A. , Hughes, M. , 2008 ) . Although, behaviorism does non concentrate on cognition as being the key to the scholar ‘s development, it observes alteration of behavior as the true key ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . This is interesting as it therefore can merely analyze discernible events – including those that are unwilled. By unwilled I refer to the thought of being incognizant during the procedure of development and attainment of cognition or experience. This brings me onto another factor in the scholar ‘s function as inactive. Due to how random these events can happen, the scholar has little or no clip to be after in front and hence, as Classical conditioning suggests, has to move instinctively ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . The lone clip contemplation occurs is when the scholar realises they have been developing. This can be a slow procedure and is the ground it is referred to every bit conditioning as it is physically and mentally exciting the physiological reaction system to be able to run better with the input and end product. Operant conditioning uses several different supports to distinguish between the acquisition processes. The three conspicuously used results can be ; positive support, negative support and penalty ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . Using these, it is observed and so ready to be broken down into events on a simple flow chart to see the input, procedure, behavior and end product. This peculiar thought can be seen in the experiment ‘The Skinner Box ‘ ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . Merely as the carnal receives positive support in the signifier of nutrient for executing the right action, such as pressing a button to let go of it, or finishing a ma ze – as does the scholar in a similar manner through footings of working within their environment. If the scholar carries out an action and receives a enjoyable result, the scholar is most likely traveling to execute the same action once more, in hopes of the same consequence. This once more adds to the inactive function of the scholar as he is still at the clemency of the environments boundaries and restrictions. Now that I have outlined the rudimentss of Behaviourism, I shall travel onto constructivism which believes the scholar is born with basic, natural and cardinal accomplishments. Therefore through geographic expedition of the environment and by manner of different phases in each person ‘s development, the scholar begins to get the better of the challenges that present themselves by utilizing experience and cognition ( Schaffer, H. R. , 2008 ) . It is through this that the scholar begins to besides understand his/her function as active, and acts suitably. A term used here is Adaptation – this refers to the ability that worlds have to alter and accommodate harmonizing to the environment through use of it ( Schaffer, H. R. , 2008 ) . By this I mean the scholar is able to use what it has around him and do it better. This is a large phenomenon as it challenges the behaviorists ‘ thought of the scholar being inactive to the environment, and alternatively the environment is the ductile signifier used by the active function of the scholar. Through ripening the scholar is able to develop through different phases that are set out in the constructivist theory – this is based on the cognitive theory that was designed by Piadget. It is really elaborate and distinguishes between different ages and different abilities. Sensory-motor ( 0-2 ) , Pre-Operational ( 2-7 ) , Concrete operational ( 7-12 ) and Formal operations ( 12+ ) ( Schaffer, H. R. , 2008 ) . Harmonizing to Piadget, merely like a design at birth, this is all preset and we can non travel frontward to another phase until we are at the right age and have completed the anterior phase. For illustration we can non get down to run before we begin to walk. This may look like a restriction, but in existent fact it ‘s still analogous to our input to the environment and how we choose to research our universe through sing it. To further reflect the thought that the function of the scholar is act ive, we can get down to look at how constructivism breaks down larning into scheme ( which is an internal representation of actions we can execute ) and utilize it to explicate assimilation. Schemas are either a group or individual action that compile together to execute an overall action, and the scheme refers to them as a whole ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . The thought of assimilation is that with scheme that we already possess we are able to research different objects and obtain different experiences. The scholar is invariably constructing upon what we know and seting together a different method for each possible state of affairs ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . An illustration of this is the sucking action performed when suckling. This scheme can subsequently be adapted to a bottle as the kid needs to imbibe. The possibilities are infinite and we develop more complex scheme as we grow and develop through life. This once more puts the scholar in a function th at is active and invariably moving upon his/her environment. Aside from Piadget ‘s theory of constructivism is Vygotsky ‘s theory of Social Constructivism. This takes into history the societal context of the development. The scholar is non merely challenged by his environment physically but besides intellectually in society. He viewed civilization as a major portion in the scholar ‘s development such as the linguistic communication they use, the history and societal context ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . A construct that relates to the function of the scholar that once more shows how active they are is the construct of the Zone of Proximal Development. This concept positions instructors as the accelerator in the development of the kid. If the kid is in their comfort zone and is pushed farther than usual – the result is eventual scheme building to get the better of the challenge ( Doherty, J. & A ; Hughes, M. , 2009 ) . This construct causes the sc holar to be seen as far more dimensional character other than an object at the clemency of his/her environment. I will now get down to contrast between the two theories get downing with their differences and traveling onto the little similarities. As we saw, the two chief differences are that both take a strong side with the function of the scholar. In Behaviourism the scholar can merely be inactive ( albeit with little pick operant conditioning ) , and Constructivism views the scholar as an active participant in his pursuit for cognition. This spread is non merely caused by the function of the scholar, but merely as important is how the theory places the environment. It seems that the environment is the key to understanding the function of the scholar. In behaviorism the environment is seen as the active member that through doing different events forces the scholar to have and react through physiological reactions. In constructivism it is close plenty opposite with its theory on the function of the environment. Alternatively the environment is seen as a governable variable that the scholar us es to their advantage. It besides ties in with the construct of ripening and that as we develop we obtain several different schemes that we use to get the better of challenges in life. This can be every bit simple as larning the alphabet to every bit hard as larning a new linguistic communication. The chief function of the scheme that we develop is to help us in sing and researching our universe exhaustively. On the other manus, Behaviourism takes a different attack. The theory suggests that we use our physiological reactions to cover with state of affairss we meet twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours. This can alter with clip and finally operant conditioning takes topographic point where we use our experience to derive preferred results. This may look to suggest that the function of the scholar is slightly active, but in existent fact it is still dependable on the environment to derive the experience and even put the scholar in a state of affairs that requires them to construct upon what they already know. Both theories are at either side of the spectrum and go on to stand as cardinal constructs for looking at the function of the scholar and their development. As we discussed, Behaviourism is more interested in detecting events that can be seen. The alteration in behavior is seen as the lone variable that is utile when analyzing development of the scholar. This may look like an uneven attack as human existences are believing animals, but we are besides natural. It is these physiological reactions that we unconsciously condition suitably to our environment. However on the other side is the theory of constructivism which looks at the ability of version and ripening. Through these two thoughts there is a platform created for analyzing development non merely physically but mentally. Using scheme it brings out an even more active function, as it shows us that we ever researching and larning to get the better of anything we face. I believe by utilizing a in-between land there could be infini te to larn more about natural physiological reactions alongside those that are constructed. Furthermore I would besides wish to raise a inquiry as to the importance of cognition and behavior between the two. It seems behaviorism is far excessively focused on detecting what can be seen, and yet most of our development, aside from obvious alterations in behavior, happens internally. Can it genuinely observe every alteration internally as an discernible event? Constructivism ‘s return on cognition and assimilation besides leaves a batch left to be desired. Schemas are one manner of depicting things, but I believe there should besides be consideration for anomalousnesss and that some people wo n't follow the same ripening form. Is this still natural, even though it goes against the cognitive attack adopted within constructivism? Both these theories are every bit of import in the perusal of what function the scholar takes and should be treated as such, side by side.

The Battle of the Java Sea in World War II

The Battle of the Java Sea occurred on February 27, 1942, and was an early naval engagement of World War II (1939-1945) in the Pacific. With the beginning of fighting in the Dutch East Indies, Allied forces attempted to unite to slow the Japanese advance south towards Australia. This saw a combined American, British, Dutch, and Australian fleet formed to protect Java. In late February, this fleets Eastern Strike Force, led by Rear Admiral Karel Doorman, engaged the approaching Japanese in the Java Sea. In the resulting engagement, Doorman doggedly attacked the Japanese but proved unable to halt their advance. The battle concluded with the loss of the light cruisers HNLMS De Ruyter and Java as well as Doormans death. In the wake of the fighting, the remaining Allied ships fled though most were destroyed in separate actions a short time later. Background In early 1942, with the Japanese rapidly advancing south through the Dutch East Indies, the Allies attempted to mount a defense of Java in an effort to hold the Malay Barrier. Concentrating under the unified command known as American-British-Dutch-Australian (ABDA) Command, Allied naval units were divided between bases at Tandjong Priok (Batavia) in the west and Surabaya in the east. Overseen by Dutch Vice Admiral Conrad Helfrich, ABDA forces were badly outnumbered and in poor condition for the approaching fight. To take the island, the Japanese formed two major invasion fleets. Japanese Attacks Along the Malay Barrier. US Army Center for Military History Japanese Sighted Sailing from Jolo in the Philippines, the Japanese Eastern Invasion Fleet was spotted by ABDA aircraft on February 25. This led Helfrich to reinforce Rear Admiral Karel Doormans Eastern Strike Force at Surabaya the next day with several ships from the Royal Navy. Upon their arrival, Doorman held a meeting with his captains to discuss the upcoming campaign. Departing that evening, Doormans force consisted of two heavy cruisers (USS Houston HMS Exeter), three light cruisers (HNLMS De Ruyter, HNLMS Java, HMAS Perth), as well as three British, two Dutch, and four American (Destroyer Division 58) destroyers. Sweeping the north coast of Java and Madura, Doormans ships failed to locate the Japanese and turned for Surabaya. A short distance to the north, the Japanese invasion force, protected by two heavy cruisers (Nachi Haguro), two light cruisers (Naka Jintsu), and fourteen destroyers, under Rear Admiral Takeo Takagi, slowly moved towards Surabaya. At 1:57 PM on February 27, a Dutch scout plane located the Japanese approximately 50 miles north of the port. Receiving this report, the Dutch admiral, whose ships were beginning to enter the harbor, reversed course to seek battle. ABDA Commander Rear Admiral Karel Doorman2 heavy cruisers, 3 light cruisers, nine destroyers Japanese Commanders Rear Admiral  Takeo TakagiRear Admiral Shoji Nishimura2 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, fourteen destroyers The Battle Begins Sailing north, Doormans exhausted crews prepared to meet the Japanese. Flying his flag from De Ruyter, Doorman deployed his ships in three columns with his destroyers flanking the cruisers. At 3:30 PM, a Japanese air raid forced the ABDA fleet to disperse. Around 4:00 PM, Jintsu spotted the re-formed ABDA ships to the south. Turning with four destroyers to engage, Jintsus column opened the battle at 4:16 PM as the Japanese heavy cruisers and additional destroyers came up in support. As both sides exchanged fire, Rear Admiral Shoji Nishimuras Destroyer Division 4 closed and launched a torpedo attack. Exeter Disabled Around 5:00 PM, Allied aircraft struck the Japanese transports but scored no hits. At the same time, Takagi, feeling the battle was drifting too close to the transports, ordered his ships to close with the enemy. Doorman issued a similar order and the range between the fleets narrowed. As the fighting intensified, Nachi struck Exeter with an 8 shell that disabled most of the ships boilers and created confusion in the ABDA line. Badly damaged, Doorman ordered Exeter to return to Surabaya with the destroyer HNLMS Witte de With as an escort. The Sides Close Shortly thereafter, the destroyer HNLMS Kortenaer was sunk by a Japanese Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. His fleet in disarray, Doorman broke off the battle to reorganize. Takagi, believing the battle was won, ordered his transports to turn south towards Surabaya. Around 5:45 PM, the action was renewed as Doormans fleet turned back towards the Japanese. Finding that Takagi was crossing his T, Doorman ordered his destroyers forward to attack the approaching Japanese light cruisers and destroyers. In the resulting action, the destroyer Asagumo was crippled and HMS Electra sunk. Repeated Attacks At 5:50, Doorman swung his column around to a southeast heading and ordered the American destroyers to cover his withdrawal. In response to this attack and concerns about mines, Takagi turned his force north shortly before sunset. Unwilling to give in, Doorman steamed away into the darkness before planning another strike on the Japanese. Turning northeast then northwest, Doorman hoped to swing around Takagis ships to reach the transports. Anticipating this, and confirmed by sightings from spotter planes, the Japanese were in position to meet the ABDA ships when they reappeared at 7:20 PM. After a brief exchange of fire and torpedoes, the two fleets separated again, with Doorman taking his ships inshore along the Java coast in another attempt to circle around the Japanese. At approximately 9:00 PM, the four American destroyers, out of torpedoes and low on fuel, detached and returned to Surabaya. Over the next hour, Doorman lost his last two destroyers when HMS Jupiter was sunk by a Dutch mine and HMS Encounter was detached to pick up survivors from Kortenaer. A Final Clash Sailing on with his four remaining cruisers, Doorman moved north and was spotted by lookouts aboard Nachi at 11:02 PM. As the ships began to exchange fire, Nachi and Haguro fired spreads of torpedoes. One from Haguro fatally struck De Ruyter at 11:32 PM exploding one of its magazines and killing Doorman. Java was hit by one of Nachis torpedoes two minutes later and sank. Obeying Doormans final orders, Houston and Perth fled the scene without stopping to pick up survivors. Aftermath The Battle of the Java Sea was a resounding victory for the Japanese and effectively ended meaningful naval resistance by ABDA forces. On February 28, Takagis invasion force began landing troops forty miles to the west of Surabaya at Kragan. In the fighting, Doorman lost two light cruisers and three destroyers, as well as one heavy cruiser badly damaged and around 2,300 killed. Japanese losses numbered one destroyer badly damaged and another with moderate damage. HMS Exeter sinks during the Second Battle of the Java Sea, March 1, 1942. US Naval History Heritage Command Though soundly defeated, that the Battle of the Java Sea lasted seven hours is a testament to Doormans determination to defend the island at all costs. Many of the remaining units of his fleet were subsequently destroyed at the Battle of the Sunda Strait (February 28/March 1) and the Second Battle of the Java Sea (March 1). Many of the wrecks of those ships lost at the Battle of the Java Sea and the subsequent actions have been destroyed by illegal salvage operations.

Ideas and Facts for Overpopulation Cause and Effect Essay

Overpopulation is what everyone is babbling about all the time. One can easily add up this topic to such themes as the global warming, abortions and euthanasia. People worry about it and what we are concerned about the most is the best foundation for a professional piece of writing. Let’s start our essay with a little bit of statistics. The world population has already hit 6.5 billion. Try to think and write on whether the world will be able to continue sustaining these terrifying numbers and suggest several ways on how to solve the global problem. Problem 1. Make sure to mention the rapid increase of the number of the Earth’s inhabitants. The point is that if the population of the world continues to grow, our home planet won’t be able to sustain it and, as the result, the number of people will start decreasing. Problem 2. The resources shortage is one of the factors that can end up life here, on the Earth. For example, if we run out of crops and water the apocalypse will be not long in coming! Problem 3. High cost of living is what makes a lot of people suffer. The rules are simple: if you happen to have no money, you won’t be able to survive in the jungles of a big city. It’s recommended to give examples of several poor countries, where people die because they’ve got no basic resources (health care, food, water)! Solution 1. Provide several reasonable suggestions to solve the overpopulation problem. Start with the increasing of the awareness of an average human being. The point is that every person living on the Earth is supposed to be fully aware of the fact that the lower population is, the higher living standards (such as education, food and health) are. Solution 2. Mention the birth rate. When people realistically control the birth rate they will get an opportunity to be 100% certain that overpopulation problem won’t be that disastrous and will be solved. To sum up what is mentioned above, do not forget to say that rapid increase in population is hanging over the world like the sword of Damocles and there is no one but us to deal with this problem.