Confronting China

I started reading an article on the new policy of confronting China, when I came across a quote that, quite frankly, struck me as hilariously naive.

“Should we simply let ourselves fall into the Thucydides trap?” asked J. Stapleton Roy, a retired U.S. diplomat who was ambassador to China from 1991 to 1995. “Or is it possible that with skillful diplomacy, China could be stronger and more prosperous in 2025 and not a strategic threat to the United States?”

The short answer to the first question is "It depends." The short answer to the second question is "absolutely not."
There is no scenario where a People's Republic of China stronger and more prosperous than the US is not a strategic threat to the US. It's possible that we might avoid the Thucydides trap, but if we do, it'll be because something other than war caused China to stagnate or even lose power. The Republic of China wouldn't be that sort of threat, but there's nothing short of war that'll leave us with ROC control of the mainland. Assuming that the ROC even WANTS control.

The nation that cracks down on Tibetans, builds concentration camps for Uighurs, persecutes religions, and even squashed the completely inoffensive Falun Gong movement (c'mon, they're basically Yoga practitioners) with awful brutality isn't going to play nice on the national stage. They have territorial disputes with pretty much every regional power within their sphere of influence, and blatantly violate international law and the law of the sea in trying to enforce their territorial claims. This is not a country that is just going to rise into power without abusing it in ways that impinge in the strategic security of the US, or, for that matter, pretty much anyone else. This is a country determined to become top dog, by any means fair or foul, and which intends to use that position for it's own gain, to everyone else's detriment.

The Myth of Soviet Power in WWII

Much ado is made of Hitler, his ill fated decision to invade Russia right before winter, and, for those who've really drank the cool aid, how the Russians could have kicked Nazi Germany's butt without Allied assistance. However, when you get right down to it, the Soviet Empire would almost certainly have fallen without outside assistance, and certainly wouldn't have been able to do better than a stalemate without it.

20% of all Soviet armored vehicles came from Lend-Lease.
30% of their fighters and bombers were Lend-Lease.
59% of their non-armored tactical vehicles (this category includes Jeeps, trucks, and half-tracks, but it's worth noting that the US sent more trucks than the Soviets total production in this category).
Food aid and petroleum products numbered in the millions of tons.
Then there's the almost 2000 locomotives provided (mostly steam, with less than a hundred diesel locomotives) and close to 10000 train cars to go with them.

I've seen some people make the specious argument that "The Soviets didn't like our weapons, so they got assigned to rear echelon roles where it didn't make a difference". This argument is, of course wrong, for a couple of reasons:

1. Rear echelon roles are still vital - a Sherman in the rear frees up a T34 for the front.
2. They likes several of our designs so much that they based designs of their own on them, or in some cases (such as the B-29) blatantly copied it in the post war era.
3. Sheer numbers meant that entire units were armed with lend-lease weapons - and those units did see combat using those weapons.
4. It of course completely ignores all the support vehicles, trains, food, and petroleum producs that were also a part of lend-lease.

In fact, we really only need to look at one category to understand just what would have happened to the Soviets without lend-lease - Trucks. The US gave the Soviets more trucks (1 1/2 and 2 1/2 ton models) than the entire non-armored vehicle production of the Soviet Union during the course of the war. Without those trucks, the USSR's logistics capability would have been more than halved. If you can't get ammunition, food, and fuel, let alone replacement weapons and repair parts to the front lines, you can't win.

Sources:
https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
https://history.army.mil/books/AMH-V2/PDF/Chapter05.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks#USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Guards_Mechanized_Corps_(Soviet_Union)

Throw the F***ing book him

That's what they're doing to Bowe Bergdahl. And the little turdblossom deserves it.
They're bringing him up on desertion (Article 85 of the UCMJ) and misbehavior before the enemy (Article 99), both fairly serious charges, but the punishment is different. While both are technically punishable by death, Art. 85 is only punishable by death during time of war, whereas Art. 99 is always punishable by death.
Now, IANAL (Any experts on military law please feel free to correct me), but if Bergdahl had done like most other chuckleheads that desert, and done it in CONUS (CONtinental US) he wouldn't be facing the possibility of a death penalty because that only applies during a formal declaration of war (which hasn't happened since WWII). However, because he deserted in a combat zone, and other soldiers had to risk their lives searching for him, he can get charged with Art. 99, and as such, could get the death penalty. It's highly unlikely, and far more probable that he'll just get life - which, I might note, I'm just fine with, unless they find out that Bergdahl is an even bigger shitbucket than he already appears, in which case I'm all in favor of a short drop and a sudden stop.

Laser Beams, Drones, and the Laser's Place in Warfare

The military is planning on deploying lasers to counter drones.
As lasers grow smaller and more efficient, and as power sources become more powerful, I fully expect lasers to become a vital part of point defense and space warfare. However, in atmosphere, they will never supplant missiles and guns - although they might be able to render obsolete the really large missiles and guns.

The reason why they'll never supplant missiles and guns (especially not the smaller ones) is due to the inherent downsides of lasers. Fog, mist, rain, and snow all significantly degrade lasers, even extremely high powered ones. Lasers are limited to "line of sight" weapons, and as such, are useless to submarines, artillery, and other weapons systems that (hopefully) never see the enemy.
If lasers render missiles and guns obsolete, it will be in the same way that the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia (although not the first Ironclads, among the first to be used in anger) rendered naval smoothbore cannon obsolete. Not by being better at the job, but by preventing the job from being completed.

Drones and aircraft will be the first things to go. Drones, especially, are extremely vulnerable to lasers. They are slow moving, meaning that a lower powered laser will have an easier time staying on target long enough to destroy it. Yes, many (most) military drones have minimal radar returns, making it difficult to distinguish them from birds on radar. For this purpose, the MK1 Eyeball and other similar sensors may make a comeback. In fact, it may just be possible for someone to cobble together an anti-drone laser from publicly available parts. 2 Watt lasers already burn through plastics with ease, and given that drones are usually made from plastics and composites due to radar cross section and cost, it really doesn't take too powerful of a laser to pose a threat to drones. The sensitive electronics inside the drones are even more vulnerable than their plastic/composite exteriors, and in the end, some smart fellow is going to create a laser array to get the same effect out of a bunch of cheap little lasers that he would get out of one really expensive laser.

Aircraft, on the other hand, require more powerful lasers if you're going to take them down by damaging critical equipment. This assumes that you're not classifying a pilot's eyes as critical equipment, or that you're simply not quite enough of an asshole to be willing to burn someone's eyes out just to kill them. Unfortunately, there are plenty of assholes out there who are willing to burn someone's eyes out. Some of them aren't even doing to kill people, they just think it's funny. In the end, lasers used against manned aircraft will vary in power depending upon what kind of kill you want and what sort of resources you have. If you have to kill an aircraft and you don't have a multimillion dollar budget, you're either going to be improvising some sort of rocket, or you'll be shooting a powerful handheld laser at someone's eyes.

Point defense, that is, shooting missiles, rockets, and other assorted ordnance out of the sky, is another place where lasers will excel. With a response time limited only by the laser's ability to target and destroy, lasers will come to dominate close in point defense. The old CIWS won't go away - as per the downsides in paragraph 2, they'll need something that can handle adverse weather conditions as a backup - but it'll be relegated to the backseat. Unfortunately, for the warfighter on a tight budget, this is a realm mostly occupied by expensive systems. I'm sure that something could be cobbled together using a camera, a repurposed Arduino or similar, and a homemade laser array, but it would require technical expertise well outside of that of the average person. In fact, it would probably require a small team to create something of the sort.

Space warfare is the true domain of lasers. Without an atmosphere to limit ranges or produce fog, and aimed at fragile, yet important systems, it is only a matter of time before lasers become predominant in space.

Infantry wouldn't have much use for lasers as a primary weapon. Note disadvantages. However, as a support weapon, lasers have much to recommend them. Consider the previously mentioned 2 watt laser.  From a review (also, check out the referenced manual):

A 24-page User Manual is included. Six pages cover the hazards of a Class 4 laser. Most of this material was written by LaserPointerSafety.com, so we are a bit biased, but we do think this is useful and comprehensive. Hazards discussed include:

• direct, reflected and diffused beam eye damage
• skin burns
• flammable material burns
• never aiming at aircraft or stars
• blue light photochemical eye damage

The user is cautioned to wear safety glasses. The user is told that this is NOT to be used as a laser pointer (it is too bright), not to aim at vehicles or law enforcement officers, and not to harass or annoy others.

Hmm... Skin burns? Flammable Material Burns? Imagine sweeping a group of men across the chest with this laser. You'll either: A. burn them or B. set them on fire. Either result is going to end with them giving you plenty of time to shoot them dead.

Most other purposes are beyond the means or impractical even for the richest of Nations. Anti-tank lasers? Forget it. Artillery? Impossible, unless you think that lobbing really expensive lasers at an enemy is a good idea, or that nuclear bomb pumped lasers deserve a place outside of space warfare. And in neither case do you really have laser artillery. So, in the end, while lasers aren't the future of warfare, they're definitely part of the future of warfare.

When in Doubt, blame the US

Putin is currently accusing the US of helping the Chechen terrorists. I think he's just sore because no matter how hard he tries to disarm the Chechens, the black market and shadetree gunsmiths conspire to keep them armed.
He also claims that "The west is only friendly with Russia when it is on its knees." If true, it might have something to do with such places as Crimea and Georgia, which showed that a Russia that isn't on it's knees makes a really bad neighbor.

Putin defended the annexation of Crimea as a response to the will of the people, which restored "historic justice."

If Putin gets to defend the annexation of Crimea as "historic justice", then we should just resurrect Manifest Destiny and reconquer Mexico. I mean, if that's all the justification that you need to forcibly annex large chunks of land, then we need to get back into the conquering business and really build an American Empire.

Hamas vs. Egypt

Rather than deal with Hamas using tunnels to get into and out of Egypt, the Egyptian government has decided to build one hell of a moat.
And I quote:

And unlike the fierce resistance and international public relations campaign Hamas mounted against Israel in August, the terrorist group that governs Gaza appears to not be seeking a head-on fight with Cairo.

The difference is, Israel cares about what the international community of the very caring and sensitive says and thinks about them.  The Egyptian government doesn't.

Heads, I win, Tails, you Lose

There is an irrational madman shooting at you and your family. So far, he's missed, because you and your family have taken concealment. You go to return fire, but the madman is using his own daughter as a human shield, and in order to shoot him, you have to shoot his daughter.
Do you:
A. Do nothing but huddle behind your concealment until the shooter shoots you and/or your family through your concealment

B. Shoot him through his daughter.

C. Try to reason with the irrational madman, even though other people who've tried to reason with him have been shot at, and you've already tried it with no result.

There is only one ethical answer - B. Anything else results in the murder of people who you are supposed to defend.

As an outside observer do you blame for the daughter's death? The man who shot her in order to defend his family, or the man who used her as a human shield?

This is the situation that Israel is currently in. They can do nothing as Hamas shoots rockets at their citizens, they can try to negotiate with Hamas, or they can grit their teeth and shoot at Hamas, despite the terrorist group's willingness to hide behind human shields. Israel chose least bad of the three answers, and they cannot truly be blamed for it.

The Unorganized Rebellion

The Unorganized rebellion is a state of revolution where, rather than operating in an organized and identifiable group, the rebels act individually, taking it upon themselves to assassinate the politicians who are the cause of the grievance. The goal of the unorganized revolution is to force the government to change it's policy in order to avoid the risk of assassination of the individuals in charge of policy.

The Reason:
An individual assassin lacks the greatest weakness of any revolution - the need to trust. Since the individual operates alone or with a small group whom they know well, there is very little chance of counterrevolutionary infiltrators leading to discovery and death. In addition, the assassination of policy makers (in large enough numbers) may lead to the elevation of sympathetic policy makers, or the fearful capitulation of the already in place policy makers.

The Weapons:
There are a multitude of firearms in the US (approximately 1 firearm per individual), but for the purposes of this post, the concern is with rifles (with a ratio of approx. 1:3), and more specifically, with rifles capable of allowing an individual to assassinate an individual from a distance where a protective detail would be incapable of detecting the assassin or responding in time to capture said assassin (assuming a well laid escape plan). This excludes a great deal of rifles in a variety of calibers, but still leaves behind a considerable amount of weapons. Unfortunately, there are no estimates of the number of rifles with this capability, an estimate made more difficult due to the ease with which a scope can be attached to a scope-less rifle. Even without such attachments, it must be noted that the most successful sniper in history used a scope-less rifle designed in 1891, and during the American Civil War sniper kills as far away as 800 yards were recorded. The standard infantry rifle of the Union, the Springfield 1861 rifled musket, had a maximum range of 1000 yards, with trained soldiers capable of accurate aimed fire at 500 yards. No amount of bodyguards can protect an individual from a halfway competent shooter. The ability of the shooter to escape depends upon the person assassinated, the location where the assassination took place, and any measures that the individual took to prevent identification.

Even if only a third of all rifles are capable of being used for the proposed purpose, there would still be millions of them. Should the line in the sand be crossed, and large numbers of citizens choose to exercise the political power inherent in a gun, the proverbial "rifle behind every blade of grass" will be aimed at the politicians responsible for crossing the line.

Given that it is effectively impossible to disarm a populace that doesn't want to be disarmed (e.g. Chechnya) the citizenry of the US will always have the means to express their extreme displeasure.


A disorganized rebellion, with individual sharpshooters running around taking potshots at politicians will quickly establish  that no policy maker is truly safe from a sufficiently disgruntled populace.

Ending Rape in War

Angelina Jolie wants someone (namely the UN) to end rape in war. It would be wonderful if that could happen, but in order for someone to do that they would need two things. The military might and the ability to project it, to force warring groups to exercise tighter discipline over their troops, and the political will to use it. Economic sanctions and stern admonitions will just go ignored - there must be a credible threat backing up the request to enforce anti-rape laws.

The UN doesn't have either of those. There isn't anyone out there who could do it without ending up in a thousand little and not so little wars with half of the world, so there probably isn't anyone capable of doing the job, and there definitely isn't anyone willing to do the job. All that has been accomplished by the actress is to bring up an issue that isn't getting solved short of someone conquering the world - and probably not even then.

If someone comes up with a workable plan for ending rape in warzones where the laws of war are usually ignored, I will happily eat my words.

China and dubious territorial claims.

China is attacking Japan for their possession of the Senkaku islands, claiming that the islands in question are actually part of Taiwan - which China also claims, but doesn't control.

In addition, China is trying to pressure Japan by also claiming Okinawa.

Rather than achieving their goals, this incredibly dubious claim over an island that has been a Japanese possession since 1879, is inhabited not by Chinese, but by Japanese, and which was not actually ever controlled by China - the kingdom of the Ryukyus, while a Chinese vassal, was an independent country, has just made the Japanese even firmer than before.

Given how numerous Chinese territorial disputes with other countries are, and how much tension is generated over its unjustified claims, I'm thinking that someone is going to go to war with the PRC before too long.

The Middle East and Southeast Asia are the two biggest world hot spots at the moment. The middle east because of Iran and Syria, Southeast Asia because of China and North Korea. The next war that the US gets involved in is going to be in one of those four countries, barring an unforeseen change in the situation.

One of the world's mad dogs

North Korean leadership have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for provocative language towards a nation capable of turning their country into a smoking parking lot - without resorting to any sort of WMDs. They have continued to ramp up the rhetoric, even occasionally shooting live weapons into South Korean territory. They've managed to piss off their sole powerful and reliable ally, and have continued to act in a manner that, in any other time or place would result in a war of serious proportions. One day the leaders of North Korea will be put down, like the mad dogs they are.

Wars are Better than Certain Kinds of Peace

North Korea continually threatens South Korea and the US with nuclear war. Its makes propaganda videos about nuking Washington D.C. It has fired artillery into South Korean territory without provocation.
If North Korea was any other country, we'd already be in the process of uniting the Koreas. Unfortunately, North Korea's closest ally is China, with one of the largest armies in the world, and as the Chinese demonstrated in the Korean War, quantity does have  a quality all of its own.
However, despite the US's reservations about going to war on the PRC's front porch, the North Korean government seems bound and determined to end up in a war of some kind. Either the US and South Korea are going to attack in order to end the threat of North Korea, or China is going to intervene in order to prevent nuclear war.
The current "peace" is unstable, dangerous, and will probably not last much longer.

Pride

Being an American, a citizen of the US, is something that I'm very proud of. Yesterday was the anniversary of an event that, though sad, is yet another reason to be proud of the US. We didn't participate in the Al-Anfal Campaign (or Kurdish Genocide), nor did we have anything to do with the Halabja poison gas attack which occurred 25 years ago on March 16, and was part of the Al-Anfal Campaign.
 Instead, we deposed the mad dog who was ultimately responsible for those atrocities and brought him to justice. No matter your opinion on the US's former presence in Iraq, one must admit that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein and Ba'ath party that he led.

North Korea leads...

In the unofficial contest to see which dictatorship is the biggest mad dog. War may not be far behind.

Nuclear Insanity

North Korea is starting to piss off its single close ally. They should realize that, while they can get away with pissing off the US so long as they have support from the PRC, the instant they lose that support the US will begin planning for Korean reunification.
They should also realize that if they piss off the PRC, the best that they can hope for is a short, bloody, destructive war that they'll lose, and which will be conducted entirely on their soil. Kim Jong-un and the rest of the North Korean leadership have drank deeply from the fountain of insanity.

Capture of Al Qaeda Spokesman makes Headlines

BBC:

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith to be tried in New York

CBS:

Osama bin Laden's son-in-law caught, brought to N.Y.
Fox News:

Bin Laden's son-in-law captured, charged in US with conspiring to kill Americans

Every single one of them is treating it like a victory. It isn't. Unless the enemy organization unravels without that leader, all you've done is leave an opening for someone. With Osama bin Laden's death, Al Qaeda has not gone away. As we take out Al Qaeda leaders, others will rise to take their places. The media needs to stop trumpeting their deaths/captures and let others do something constructive, such as killing all the terrorists, without obstruction, and without giving the enemy any media coverage at all. The enemy depends upon media coverage, take that away and they're just a bunch of murderers and bandits. Do the world a favor and ignore them entirely.

Also, we're trying this *sshole in a civilian court when we should be trying him for violations of the laws of war.

Just one member of Al Qaeda has died

When a high ranking member of any enemy organization, be it military or terrorist, dies, it should not be celebratory news. Celebration should be saved until the enemy has surrendered and troubles you no more. The Soviet Union survived the deaths of Lenin and Stalin. The People's Republic of China survived the death of Mao. The Macedonian Kingdom survived the death of Phillip II. Rome survived the death of Julius Caesar. Carthage survived the death of Hamilcar. The British Empire survived the death of Nelson. When Osama Bin Laden died, Al Qaeda continued on.
Sometimes, as in the case of the Macedonian Empire, the structure does not survive without the one who built it. Often however, all that has been done is to clear the way for another to take over. This other might be more or less capable than their predecessor (compare Phillip II to Alexander the Great), but you cannot count on the threat to end with the leader.
So don't tell me when Al Qaeda leaders are killed. I just want to know when they're no longer a threat. That is when I'll celebrate.

On the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms. The exact same arms as those wielded by the military.
When the Second Amendment was written, the usual means of fighting was to stand in lines and shoot at each other. Some talk about how dumb this was, ask why rifles weren't used, but given the technology of the time, it was the only way to conduct war.
The rifles of the time worked well as a weapon of asymmetric war, ideal for sniping, ambushes, and hit and run attacks, but it failed as a weapon of regular war. This was because the only ammunition available to anyone of the time was the lead ball. It wasn't until 1847 that the first successful real bullet was introduced. Until then, the only way for rifles to be effective was to force a lead ball slightly larger than the bore of the rifle, to engage the rifling, making it impossible to load a rifle quickly, allowing early riflemen to be easily overran and slaughtered by cavalry or advancing musketeers should they try to hold a battlefield.
The musket, on the other hand, was specifically designed as a weapon of war. Because it was a smooth-bore firearm, it could be loaded quickly (although at the expense of accuracy). This made musketeers harder to overrun, while forcing them to engage at much shorter distances.

The Stupidity of Cutting Military Spending

From Fox:

Foreign adversaries ramp up defense spending as Pentagon cuts back

..."Instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we'd turn into a second-rate power. That would be the result of sequester," Panetta said. Sequester is the name for the automatic cuts first passed into law in the summer of 2011 as part of the debt-ceiling deal...  

The world is a dangerous place. We cannot afford to "study war no more" or cut military spending, because if we do, we'll lose our place as the premier power in the world. Congress needs to get its act together.

Timbuktu soon to be retaken

From BBC:

Mali conflict: French and Malian troops move on Timbuktu

It appears that the war against Al Qaeda in Mali is going swimmingly. The next question is: Will there be a serious insurgency, along the lines of Iraq or Afghanistan?