Again!
I had to enable comment moderation a while back to ensure I could catch and manually remove spam before it hit the public view. Blogger has finally enabled a spam filter and it appears to be working quite well. So until the spammers get the upper hand again, moderation is OFF.
As a reminder, I do not filter out opposing points of view just because they are 'opposition' (I prefer an honest 'back and forth' , but commenters must be registered with Blogger or have OpenID. This seems like a nice balance of openness and accountability.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
The Limits of Policy Analysis Analysis
An open letter to Ms Megan McArdle
Gee whiz, Megan. You provide a fair illustration of Herzberg's Two-Factor (Hygiene and Motivation) Theory, but an abysmal one for tying it to any ‘substitute effect’ economic argument. Using the same example, please expand on the product-output side of the story (productivity gains that allow the higher pay in the first place) and how that ripples out into the macro view of economics and the world. What you describe as the ‘substitution effect’ I think can be more accurately described as recognition of ‘opportunity costs’. The distinction is important, because not only does one decide their leisure is more valuable, but tax considerations progressively reduce the net value of the labor that is performed.
Perhaps the biggest point passed by is the recognition that a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’. If I am making more money because of the demand for my employer’s product, unless all profits (company and personal) are parked in a non-interest bearing location, those monies are added to the amount of money circulating and available for other products, the production and sale of which all generate revenue for many 'someones'.
To summarize, your attempt to find fault with supply side economics in this case is a clear "swing and a miss".
P.S. I would have commented at the source, but I don't need to sign up for any more 'services' or 'feeds'. I would have e-mailed you, but it wasn't readily apparent what your address was at the link.
Gee whiz, Megan. You provide a fair illustration of Herzberg's Two-Factor (Hygiene and Motivation) Theory, but an abysmal one for tying it to any ‘substitute effect’ economic argument. Using the same example, please expand on the product-output side of the story (productivity gains that allow the higher pay in the first place) and how that ripples out into the macro view of economics and the world. What you describe as the ‘substitution effect’ I think can be more accurately described as recognition of ‘opportunity costs’. The distinction is important, because not only does one decide their leisure is more valuable, but tax considerations progressively reduce the net value of the labor that is performed.
Perhaps the biggest point passed by is the recognition that a ‘rising tide lifts all boats’. If I am making more money because of the demand for my employer’s product, unless all profits (company and personal) are parked in a non-interest bearing location, those monies are added to the amount of money circulating and available for other products, the production and sale of which all generate revenue for many 'someones'.
To summarize, your attempt to find fault with supply side economics in this case is a clear "swing and a miss".
P.S. I would have commented at the source, but I don't need to sign up for any more 'services' or 'feeds'. I would have e-mailed you, but it wasn't readily apparent what your address was at the link.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Howard Zinn FBI Shocka! .. He WAS a Commie!
FBI: Yep, he was a Commie.
Update: Some observations on Zinn and his fan base from Ron Radosh.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Awwww. Prius Drivers Lose Their Perk
(H/T Jalopnik)
The 'State' giveth. And when your behaviors have been sufficiently altered, the 'State' taketh away.
Of course, my feelings concerning 'hybrids', especially the Prius, and the insentient emoters that tend to buy them, have been expressed before.
At least the Prius is 'better' than the last Honda Insight, although what Jeremy Clarkson wrote about the Insight applies pretty much to all 'hybrids' (just change some locations):
The 'State' giveth. And when your behaviors have been sufficiently altered, the 'State' taketh away.
Of course, my feelings concerning 'hybrids', especially the Prius, and the insentient emoters that tend to buy them, have been expressed before.
At least the Prius is 'better' than the last Honda Insight, although what Jeremy Clarkson wrote about the Insight applies pretty much to all 'hybrids' (just change some locations):
But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.To be honest, I have seen one 'hybrid' I really liked. I was on a business trip to California earlier this year and saw this one:
The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.
Sweeeet...
Friday, July 02, 2010
'Carpet Bombing' vs CARPET BOMBING!
Etymological Observations: A Safari into the Semantics of the Left
From the back and forth in my last adventure in the threads at Defense Tech here, it was driven home that industrious but small minds had sometime succeeded in perverting the English language (once again) to suit their purposes. In this specific instance I am referring to the use of the term: 'Carpet Bombing'.
From the thread at the referenced link, two individuals identify air strike activity conducted in wars after Vietnam as 'carpet bombing'. I ruminated as to why this must be, since I distinctly remember interviews and briefings with senior DOD civilian and military leaders where they corrected such mis-perceptions...repeatedly. I specifically remembered the 'repeatedly' part because it seemed that the questioners/interviewers seized on the term in Desert Storm and seized upon it again early during Operation Allied Force. It then reappeared again for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. The term was not originating within DOD and NOWHERE is it spoken of in military community as an acceptable, much less preferred 'technique' in applying force through Airpower.
It did not take much researching to verify my memories of on the topic during the wars from Desert Storm forward were correct. From a 15 March 1991 briefing during Desert Storm (emphasis mine):
Now, from an interview that Paul Wolfowitz gave to the BBC in November the same year (more of my emphasis) we see further refutation of the the term 'carpet bombing':
Finally, we note that the 'carpet bombing' meme survived to OIF, and that the press refuses to make/see the distinction between precision use of unguided weapons and 'carpet bombing' as a convenient scare term. From a March 3, 2003 briefing at the Pentagon we find the now-retired General McChrystal jumping in to correct a questioner on the topic:
You don't have to look hard for where the MSM gets their ideas on 'carpet bombing'. Just enter the terms "carpet bombing" with the name of the war you are interested in in your search engine and you get such lovely link suggestions:
"Operation Desert Slaughter": http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Oper_Desert_Slaughter_1991
PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/b52.html
Rabid Montclair State University faculty (A Stalinist-English Teacher?-ROFLMAO!):
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/gulf-war-fingrut.html
Project on Defense Alternatives:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html
...you get the drift. All the usual 'Blame America First' scumb...er...suspects.
From the back and forth in my last adventure in the threads at Defense Tech here, it was driven home that industrious but small minds had sometime succeeded in perverting the English language (once again) to suit their purposes. In this specific instance I am referring to the use of the term: 'Carpet Bombing'.
From the thread at the referenced link, two individuals identify air strike activity conducted in wars after Vietnam as 'carpet bombing'. I ruminated as to why this must be, since I distinctly remember interviews and briefings with senior DOD civilian and military leaders where they corrected such mis-perceptions...repeatedly. I specifically remembered the 'repeatedly' part because it seemed that the questioners/interviewers seized on the term in Desert Storm and seized upon it again early during Operation Allied Force. It then reappeared again for Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. The term was not originating within DOD and NOWHERE is it spoken of in military community as an acceptable, much less preferred 'technique' in applying force through Airpower.
It did not take much researching to verify my memories of on the topic during the wars from Desert Storm forward were correct. From a 15 March 1991 briefing during Desert Storm (emphasis mine):
This is the 117, you've seen it. It's been operational now for nearly 10 years. It still represents the state of the art as far as operationally fielded technology. As far as we know, it's never been tracked by any Iraqi radar. It has certainly never been touched by bullets or SAMs or anything else. We operated for 43 days with this aircraft completely invulnerable,so far as we know. As it says, never touched by target defenses.The statement reads as if someone was out there claiming that the US was 'carpet bombing' Baghdad doesn't it? Such claims must have happened more than once: From an article in the Spring 1997 Airpower Journal (emphasis mine):
I want to make a little more on this point here, because with the combination of stealth and precision attack capability in the 117, we were able to attack targets very discretely. We did not carpet bomb downtown Baghdad. As a matter of fact, it's obvious to anyone who has been watching on television, the pictures of Baghdad neighborhoods untouched,people driving around, walking around on the sidewalks, and so forth. We took special care to make sure that we attacked only military targets, and we attacked them quite precisely.
Aircrews were informed to bring home the ordnance if they weren't sure they were locked to the right targets. We made very few mistakes. I'm quite proud of the fact that we achieved high levels of destruction against military targets with minimum collateral damage.
When news from Basra in early February suggested carpet bombing, Pentagon spokesmen seemed increasingly exasperated. “We never said there would be no collateral damage,” Lt Gen Thomas Kelly complained at one of his afternoon briefings:Now we skip forward to 1999, and Operation Allied Force. From a May 1, 1999 Pentagon briefing (again, all emphasis mine) where the briefer describes precision attack against area targets, and specifically how sticks of unguided bombs are laid down in very defined target areas:
What we did say is that our pilots scrupulously adhered to good targeting . . .and in fact flew that target profile to the best of their ability. We go to great lengths . . . to avoid collateral damage. But war is a dirty business, and unfortunately, there will be collateral damage. There's no way one can prohibit it.
Iraq wasn't claiming even five hundred civilian casualties, yet military spokesmen were practically admitting hidden damage. One might have thought Dresden or Tokyo had occurred.
One of the things that's been talked about a little bit is targets and collateral damage. We've talked about that a lot. There's some discussion about B-52s being used in carpet type bombing. We don't do that with B-52.But it seems there is 'movement' out there who insists on perverting the term 'carpet bombing' for reasons of their own - perhaps as part of a fey attempt to evoke some emotional response among the weaker and more unprepared minds among the masses. I have to conclude as much because the knee-jerk response of crying 'carpet bombing' again emerged in Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. First, from a 31 October 2001 DOD briefing (still my emphasis) on operations in Afghanistan:
I mentioned yesterday that our B-52s have changed over the years dramatically, with increases to their avionics capability, increases to their GPS capability, increasing in their overall avionics.
[Chart - Prahovo Petroleum Production Storage Facility, Serbia]
This is a target, you've seen many of these before. This is about 1,000 feet long in this area, probably, maybe a couple of hundred feet wide. It's not an atypical target. We have several of those we've seen before.
Next slide.
[Prahovo Petroleum Production Storage Facility, Serbia]
This would be about the lay down pattern of the B-52 today at whatever altitude we want them to fly at. So you can see that, basically, this is not carpet bombing. This would be a perfect target for that type of weapon to hit. There are other targets, assembly areas we could use with the B-52, and it has a very, very capable delivery method with their avionics they have today to attack a target like this with very little collateral damage. As you can see, there wouldn't be much of a problem with anything around here being in the category of collateral damage.
So as we talk about the B-52, it has the capability to attack with standoff weapons or gravity weapons, and these gravity weapons are not dumb bombs anymore because of the avionics we have in the aircraft to make sure that we do, in this case, what would be called precision on that area target.
Q: Admiral, of all the strikes south of Mazar-e Sharif -- the airstrikes on the Taliban positions, have they all involved precision-guided weapons? Or have the B-52s started to drop strings of 500-pound unguided bombs -- colloquially "carpet bombing" -- now that you have better information on where these divisions are.So now 'carpet bombing is a 'colloquialism' versus a highly defined term? It is a slippery slope that we seem to be riding.
Stufflebeem: I'm not sure if it's -- if it's necessary to get into specific mission by mission, but it is -- it is fair to say that we're using both precision and non-precision weapons while attacking Taliban forces -- you know, while they're deployed.
Q: Could use [sic] deterrent carpet bombing and the strings of the unguided bombs against those positions around Mazar-e Sharif?
Stufflebeem: I'm familiar with the term "carpet bombing." I think it's an inaccurate term. It's an old -- an old expression. Heavy bombers have the capacity to carry large loads of weapons, and oftentimes if a target presents itself either in an engagement zone, or when directed, it's possible to release an entire load of bombs at once, in which case -- the real formal term for that is called a "long stick," which has also been called carpet bombing.
Now, from an interview that Paul Wolfowitz gave to the BBC in November the same year (more of my emphasis) we see further refutation of the the term 'carpet bombing':
BBC: Can I just ask you first of all about the latest developments in the war in Afghanistan which is that positions north of Kabul are being now carpet bombed,we hear. Is that a change of strategy?So even the civilian leadership gets the difference between bombing a city and bombing 'front line' units in the field. A fine point as to why Dresden doesn't meet my high standard for the term 'carpet bombing' is one I will put aside as 1) irrelevant for this argument and 2) a more complex issue than can be tackled in a blog post - Heck, I have read books that have fallen short on the issue.
Wolfowitz: I don't think it's a change of strategy. That's a journalistic term, I believe. We are certainly putting very heavy effort against Taliban positions. The strategy from the beginning has been to empower the opposition forces inside Afghanistan to be able to undermine and eventually hopefully overthrow the Taliban.
BBC: But moving from a position where clearly the strikes were one off from surgical to B-52s going in and it looks like carpet bombing to anyone who saw the pictures.
Wolfowitz: Again, I find it -- this is not carpet bombing a la Dresden and World War II. It is one of the reasons, by the way, we did not send (inaudible) from the beginning is, it is twice the size, it covers a significant area, but it's areas that are chosen quite precisely to be front line units. When you're going after front line units you don't take out one soldier at a time.
Finally, we note that the 'carpet bombing' meme survived to OIF, and that the press refuses to make/see the distinction between precision use of unguided weapons and 'carpet bombing' as a convenient scare term. From a March 3, 2003 briefing at the Pentagon we find the now-retired General McChrystal jumping in to correct a questioner on the topic:
Q: Torie, on the use of the heavy bombers -- and I address this to the general primarily -- the B-1s, B-2s and B-52s, can you tell what kind of ordnance they're dropping? The B-52 is dropping dumb bombs, what we used to call carpet bombing, on the Republican Guard troops?I would have loved to know who asked that question. The phrasing dismisses the distinction that exists between carpet bombing and techniques into a simple change or terms for the same thing.
McChrystal: Sir, they are not. They are dropping a combination of munitions, a large number of precision munitions. So there's really not carpet bombing occurring.
You don't have to look hard for where the MSM gets their ideas on 'carpet bombing'. Just enter the terms "carpet bombing" with the name of the war you are interested in in your search engine and you get such lovely link suggestions:
"Operation Desert Slaughter": http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Oper_Desert_Slaughter_1991
PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/b52.html
Rabid Montclair State University faculty (A Stalinist-English Teacher?-ROFLMAO!):
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/gulf-war-fingrut.html
Project on Defense Alternatives:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html
...you get the drift. All the usual 'Blame America First' scumb...er...suspects.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Debunking B-2 Myths and Myth Making
Holding back the horde over at Defense Tech
There's a guy named Byron Skinner that shows up in the threads on Defense Tech that likes to make assertions on Airpower - a topic about which he pretty much knows absolutely nothing. Usually I can stand back and marvel at the innanity without getting involved, and usually somebody else points it out for me. But on this thread he pretty much went off the deep end on a topic and threw in a rather lame pre-emptive attack against "right wing ideologists" who might take umbrage with his 'points'. DT has started really limiting comment space and has made it practically impossible to adequately fisk monumentally erroneous arguments, so I left an excerpt with a reference to this site in case anyone wants to bother to read the whole debunking with references.
Oh...and yes, my contemporaries often wonder why I 'bother'. Sometimes so do I. [;-)
My response to 'Byron' follows:
RE: "SMSgt. Mac. The US did in fact carpet bomb in the 1991 Gulf war and most embarrassing of all Tora Bora was carpet bombed bombed by B-1B's and bin Laden walked out."
You are playing fast and loose with the term 'Carpet Bombing'. Carpet Bombing in modern usage describes attacking a large area, such as a city, in pursuit of total destruction or terror and without an explicit target of military value (like a patch of jungle with unknown inhabitants). It is often used (inaccurately) to describe 'Bomber' Harris’ campaigns including the bombing of Dresden or (just as inaccurately) LeMay’s fire-bombing of Japan in WWII. After Vietnam there have been AREA TARGETS (ex runways/airfields, military installations, army formations in defilade, CAVE COMPLEXES, etc) where sticks of unguided bombs have been laid down, but these areas are comparably small and compact compared to ‘carpet bombing’ a city.
RE: “The B-2 even according to the Air Force it had no unique conventional mission and on four of the 21 airframes were modified for the conventional mission, three are left.”
That doesn’t square with the fact that in 1999’s OAF war then-Major Matt Kmon stated that he “had six jets at anytime to execute the flying schedule” and the performance of 5 of the aircraft by tail numbers (1088, 0329, 1071, 0331, 1067) in Operation Allied Force were all explicitly mentioned on just one page in “The B-2 Goes to War” (Rebecca Grant, IRIS, 2001, p. 92).
RE: “The Air Force has completely withdrawn the B-2 from the conventional role. To correct you SMSgt Mac the B-2 was never designed nor intended for the conventional mission, to preform [sic] the conventional mission four airframes were, at a high cost, modified and a suite of weapons, since the four B-2's modified for the conventional operations never received the electronic package they never dropped the JADAM had to be developed just for those four bombers.”
You. Correct ME on Airpower in general and specifically Long Range Strike? Every one of Byron's fairy tales is demonstrably false. I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they did not know that the B-2 was the first bomber since the advent of the atomic bomb to be developed from the beginning to have both a conventional and nuclear capability (I’ve heard senior DoD leadership make the same error), but the absolutely ludicrous story accompanying this assertion at this time simply BEGS for a thorough smackdown from an authoritative source.
From the ‘B-2 Stealth Bomber Fact Book’, Rev 3. dated November 1992, citing the B-2 Weapon System Specification dated November 21, 1981 we read:
RE: ”The conventional role the Air Force envisioned for the B-2 was as a stand off attack weapon that could remain outside air defense missile systems. The problem of course was that the terrorists never bothers to buy any ADM systems.”
The first conventional missile planned for the B-2 was the TSSAM, since superceded by the JASSM. It was an all aspect LO missile capable of striking high value targets deep inside a peer opponent after being launched discretely from within the contested airspace.
RE: “Your #6 statement is so absurd and just plain nonsense that it doesn't even rate a response. Your personal attacks and lack of knowledge of the subject only reflects the desperation or the right wing to make any kind of argument or this issue.”
Well, which is it? Ad Hominem attack. Decry retaliation. Make an Ad Hominem attack. Don’t take swings if you can’t stand getting smacked.
And, once again! I’ve shown that YOU Byron... you lead the way in 'lack of knowledge**'.
**at least when it comes to Airpower and its role in National Defense.
Photos from B-2 Stealth Bomber Fact Book (Circa 1992) follow. This was a real find for me - I picked it up at the San Diego Air And Space Museum a year or so ago on the bookstore's used book rack.
First Photo: Cover shot. this was put out for Gov't consumption as a backgrounder right after the B-2 buy had been cut to 20.
Here we have just a couple of pages into the document, the the kinds of weapons and weapon carriage schemes that the B-2 was initially to carry. That's an awful lot of conventional weapons listed for a bomber that doesn't carry them. By 1994/5 the GATS/GAM and less- accurate (but cheaper) JDAMs were looming on the horizon.
Outside of a briefing NG gives VIPs (and some pilots in the early days) I've never seen this excerpt of the statement of requirements in an unclassified document anywhere else. Note the second major bullet.
More reinforcement as to the point about the B-2's conventional capability.
There's a guy named Byron Skinner that shows up in the threads on Defense Tech that likes to make assertions on Airpower - a topic about which he pretty much knows absolutely nothing. Usually I can stand back and marvel at the innanity without getting involved, and usually somebody else points it out for me. But on this thread he pretty much went off the deep end on a topic and threw in a rather lame pre-emptive attack against "right wing ideologists" who might take umbrage with his 'points'. DT has started really limiting comment space and has made it practically impossible to adequately fisk monumentally erroneous arguments, so I left an excerpt with a reference to this site in case anyone wants to bother to read the whole debunking with references.
Oh...and yes, my contemporaries often wonder why I 'bother'. Sometimes so do I. [;-)
My response to 'Byron' follows:
RE: "SMSgt. Mac. The US did in fact carpet bomb in the 1991 Gulf war and most embarrassing of all Tora Bora was carpet bombed bombed by B-1B's and bin Laden walked out."
You are playing fast and loose with the term 'Carpet Bombing'. Carpet Bombing in modern usage describes attacking a large area, such as a city, in pursuit of total destruction or terror and without an explicit target of military value (like a patch of jungle with unknown inhabitants). It is often used (inaccurately) to describe 'Bomber' Harris’ campaigns including the bombing of Dresden or (just as inaccurately) LeMay’s fire-bombing of Japan in WWII. After Vietnam there have been AREA TARGETS (ex runways/airfields, military installations, army formations in defilade, CAVE COMPLEXES, etc) where sticks of unguided bombs have been laid down, but these areas are comparably small and compact compared to ‘carpet bombing’ a city.
RE: “The B-2 even according to the Air Force it had no unique conventional mission and on four of the 21 airframes were modified for the conventional mission, three are left.”
That doesn’t square with the fact that in 1999’s OAF war then-Major Matt Kmon stated that he “had six jets at anytime to execute the flying schedule” and the performance of 5 of the aircraft by tail numbers (1088, 0329, 1071, 0331, 1067) in Operation Allied Force were all explicitly mentioned on just one page in “The B-2 Goes to War” (Rebecca Grant, IRIS, 2001, p. 92).
RE: “The Air Force has completely withdrawn the B-2 from the conventional role. To correct you SMSgt Mac the B-2 was never designed nor intended for the conventional mission, to preform [sic] the conventional mission four airframes were, at a high cost, modified and a suite of weapons, since the four B-2's modified for the conventional operations never received the electronic package they never dropped the JADAM had to be developed just for those four bombers.”
You. Correct ME on Airpower in general and specifically Long Range Strike? Every one of Byron's fairy tales is demonstrably false. I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they did not know that the B-2 was the first bomber since the advent of the atomic bomb to be developed from the beginning to have both a conventional and nuclear capability (I’ve heard senior DoD leadership make the same error), but the absolutely ludicrous story accompanying this assertion at this time simply BEGS for a thorough smackdown from an authoritative source.
From the ‘B-2 Stealth Bomber Fact Book’, Rev 3. dated November 1992, citing the B-2 Weapon System Specification dated November 21, 1981 we read:
- From its inception, the B-2 statement of requirement has included conventional capability.“…provide the capability to conduct missions across the spectrum of conflict, including general nuclear war,…nuclear engagements less than general war, conventional conflict, and peacetime crisis situations.”
RE: ”The conventional role the Air Force envisioned for the B-2 was as a stand off attack weapon that could remain outside air defense missile systems. The problem of course was that the terrorists never bothers to buy any ADM systems.”
The first conventional missile planned for the B-2 was the TSSAM, since superceded by the JASSM. It was an all aspect LO missile capable of striking high value targets deep inside a peer opponent after being launched discretely from within the contested airspace.
RE: “Your #6 statement is so absurd and just plain nonsense that it doesn't even rate a response. Your personal attacks and lack of knowledge of the subject only reflects the desperation or the right wing to make any kind of argument or this issue.”
Well, which is it? Ad Hominem attack. Decry retaliation. Make an Ad Hominem attack. Don’t take swings if you can’t stand getting smacked.
And, once again! I’ve shown that YOU Byron... you lead the way in 'lack of knowledge**'.
**at least when it comes to Airpower and its role in National Defense.
Photos from B-2 Stealth Bomber Fact Book (Circa 1992) follow. This was a real find for me - I picked it up at the San Diego Air And Space Museum a year or so ago on the bookstore's used book rack.
First Photo: Cover shot. this was put out for Gov't consumption as a backgrounder right after the B-2 buy had been cut to 20.
Here we have just a couple of pages into the document, the the kinds of weapons and weapon carriage schemes that the B-2 was initially to carry. That's an awful lot of conventional weapons listed for a bomber that doesn't carry them. By 1994/5 the GATS/GAM and less- accurate (but cheaper) JDAMs were looming on the horizon.
Outside of a briefing NG gives VIPs (and some pilots in the early days) I've never seen this excerpt of the statement of requirements in an unclassified document anywhere else. Note the second major bullet.
More reinforcement as to the point about the B-2's conventional capability.
Friday, June 11, 2010
ANOTHER "Conservative= Bad Person" Study?
Déjà vu... all over again.
The summary of yet another...ahem...‘study’ at this link finding correlation between one's personality and ones politics has a strangely similar feel to one that was a pretty hot topic back at Dr. Helen’s blog back in 2005 (disclosure: I was a commenter) .
From the latest:
The summary of yet another...ahem...‘study’ at this link finding correlation between one's personality and ones politics has a strangely similar feel to one that was a pretty hot topic back at Dr. Helen’s blog back in 2005 (disclosure: I was a commenter) .
From the latest:
Researchers at UofT [Toronto] have shown that the psychological concern for compassion and equality is associated with a liberal mindset, while the concern for order and respect of social norms is associated with a conservative mindset.
One wonders if the 'researchers' ever considered how their own bias may have caused them to miss a few key questions and answers, such as: What if liberals seek 'equality of outcomes' while conservatives seek 'equality of opportunity'? And how does their bias affect how they decide which philosophy is more 'compassionate' and just?
Is it just me, or are these things coming out even more frequently these days? I can hardly wait for Iron Shrink and/or Dr. Helen to weigh in on this one.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
AF Chief of Staff?...or Just another 'Suit'?
(H/T In From the Cold)
General Schwartz, in the latest of a long string of events highlighting the AF's 'buisiness ethos' is either actively subverting attempts by a non-profit historical group from gettng their hands on an F-105 thunderchief and enough parts to get one flying again. The historical significance of the F-105's combat history, including the sacrifices and efforts of the men who flew them and kept them flying cannot be denied, and their memory should be kept alive. Bringing what is now commonly referred to as 'Heritage Flights' to the masses at airshows and in silent display makes these beasts a reality to those who've forgotten or never knew them.
I was stationed at Hill AFB for many years, including the time when the ANG's 419thFW transitioned from being the last F-105 Wing to the first Guard unit to fly the F-16.
My home was a couple of miles off the end of the runway, and you always knew when a "Thud" flight was taking off. The Thud sure went out with a bang that I'll never forget: the 'Thudout' was a sight that would never be seen again.
Come to think of it, the AF is also missing a pretty good opportunity to remind those who would complain* about the F-35 noise footprint, what used to be flying overhead when rarely a complaint was heard.
* Attention Boise! You used to have freakin' F-4s stationed there! Now suck it up and slap on your "Jet Noise - The Sound of Freedom" bumper stickers. (In the comments section at the link, I'd say most of the locals are telling the fearful ninnies just about the same thing.)
General Schwartz, in the latest of a long string of events highlighting the AF's 'buisiness ethos' is either actively subverting attempts by a non-profit historical group from gettng their hands on an F-105 thunderchief and enough parts to get one flying again. The historical significance of the F-105's combat history, including the sacrifices and efforts of the men who flew them and kept them flying cannot be denied, and their memory should be kept alive. Bringing what is now commonly referred to as 'Heritage Flights' to the masses at airshows and in silent display makes these beasts a reality to those who've forgotten or never knew them.
I was stationed at Hill AFB for many years, including the time when the ANG's 419thFW transitioned from being the last F-105 Wing to the first Guard unit to fly the F-16.
My home was a couple of miles off the end of the runway, and you always knew when a "Thud" flight was taking off. The Thud sure went out with a bang that I'll never forget: the 'Thudout' was a sight that would never be seen again.
Come to think of it, the AF is also missing a pretty good opportunity to remind those who would complain* about the F-35 noise footprint, what used to be flying overhead when rarely a complaint was heard.
* Attention Boise! You used to have freakin' F-4s stationed there! Now suck it up and slap on your "Jet Noise - The Sound of Freedom" bumper stickers. (In the comments section at the link, I'd say most of the locals are telling the fearful ninnies just about the same thing.)
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
End of Libel? Media Tiptoes Around the Problem
Ever Hear of "Occam's Razor"?
The New York Observer has an entertaining piece featuring a Time Inc. attorney who's specialty is (was) Libel Law. All sorts of reasons are presented as likely behind the disappearance of libel suits against big media are offered, and I think some come close, describing some likely ancillary reasons, but it is almost as if they're dancing around the obvious one.
Think about it for just a moment, What's your first thought when someone besmirches your good name? Answer: "Will anyone believe them?"
Credibility in the mainstream media is seen as MIA by most people. Combine that with the fact the media doesn't have a lock on the flow of information anymore and people can get their side 'out there' (mentioned in the linked article) and you get a drop in people who care enough about lies the media writes about them to take legal action.
The New York Observer has an entertaining piece featuring a Time Inc. attorney who's specialty is (was) Libel Law. All sorts of reasons are presented as likely behind the disappearance of libel suits against big media are offered, and I think some come close, describing some likely ancillary reasons, but it is almost as if they're dancing around the obvious one.
Think about it for just a moment, What's your first thought when someone besmirches your good name? Answer: "Will anyone believe them?"
Credibility in the mainstream media is seen as MIA by most people. Combine that with the fact the media doesn't have a lock on the flow of information anymore and people can get their side 'out there' (mentioned in the linked article) and you get a drop in people who care enough about lies the media writes about them to take legal action.
Monday, May 24, 2010
An Arsenal We Can All Live With? NOT!
Gary Schaub Jr. and James Wood Forsyth Jr. miss the target: using ‘Nukes’.
First problem: they carefully cherry-picked their sources. They cite some former military authorities without providing evidence that these source’s opinions are common much less in the majority. They cite “Alian [sic] Enthoven” of all people on this subject. Alain Enthoven played a critical role in the rise of modeling and simulation in defense policy development and is also a once-renowned economist, DoD budgeteer and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately for Dr. Enthoven, he is also a man who had his “Analytical A**” handed to him at least once on nuclear force structure issues by Glenn A Kent. One cannot discern with certainty if our subject scholars were aware of this, but one would think that if they were, they would also have known that the reason the Nuclear Triad survived to present day is based upon sound logic. Hint: It has nothing to do with their simplistic discounting of the Triad which was expressed as follows in the source paper:
The above anecdote is also an excellent vehicle for illustrating my next point: Nowhere in the paper do the authors deal with the ‘and then the enemy does what?‘ question. They talk superficially of force, counter-force, etc in economic terms. But I see no evidence they have addressed the possible overt and clandestine moves potential adversaries could make to defeat a piddling 300 or so warheads. As Gen. Kent described Dr Enthoven’s analysis:
Finally, I really take issue with this most happily-conveyed conclusion of the authors’:
The conclusion clearly demonstrates the authors have a skewed view of risk, the definition of which is: probability times the consequences. If we reduce the nuclear arsenals with so little care as that which has been used in the author’s analyses, we potentially increase the as yet unknown probability of a nuclear exchange to result in a nuclear war of some indeterminable (but hopefully less than “world-killer”) scope. How do the authors know that they are not increasing the net risk in their approach? Answer: We can’t find it in the writings so we don’t know. I am particularly wondering if the authors have considered the results if after a 'small' exchange, some not-yet-post-modern society's 'leaders' conclude: "Hey, that wasn't so bad".
It is because of thinking such as that expressed by Doctors Schaub and Forsyth that I say the following prayer almost every day:
"Lord, please protect us from Academics and all other ‘Hybris’-ridden 'Annointed', Amen."
I kid you not.
Note: In the original paper there was another co-author. One presumes that as an Air Force Officer and an honest-to-gosh Strategic Planner (vs, a schoolyard one), he had the good sense and experience to distance himself from the political ho-hah in the OpEd. People shouldn’t read too much into the authors’ teaching at AF institutions. You will find broader ranges of viewpoints and backgrounds in the halls of the Air University than you will ever find in so-called ‘name’ universities.
Updated 5/25 to clarify points and improve readability.
“The Pentagon has now told the public, for the first time, precisely how many nuclear weapons the United States has in its arsenal: 5,113. That is exactlyMaybe. Maybe not. But you sure couldn’t rationally arrive at such a conclusion based upon their OpEd (see link in header) or the original scholarship the OpEd is based upon. The OpEd is a necessarily light on facts due to column space. There is no excuse for the same of its source document, and to my thinking, it damns the OpEd's assertions on the face of it. I find much of the original paper... ahh.., let's just say 'problematic'. What follows are the most serious faults I find with the authors’ writings.
4,802 more than we need.”
First problem: they carefully cherry-picked their sources. They cite some former military authorities without providing evidence that these source’s opinions are common much less in the majority. They cite “Alian [sic] Enthoven” of all people on this subject. Alain Enthoven played a critical role in the rise of modeling and simulation in defense policy development and is also a once-renowned economist, DoD budgeteer and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately for Dr. Enthoven, he is also a man who had his “Analytical A**” handed to him at least once on nuclear force structure issues by Glenn A Kent. One cannot discern with certainty if our subject scholars were aware of this, but one would think that if they were, they would also have known that the reason the Nuclear Triad survived to present day is based upon sound logic. Hint: It has nothing to do with their simplistic discounting of the Triad which was expressed as follows in the source paper:
“ The second criticism has to do with the future of the triad, which was the fulcrum of deterrence throughout the Cold War. Some might argue that the triad was effective and its redundancy and flexibility shored up international stability and helped keep the Cold War cold. It is, however, important to recall that the Soviets had no such operational concept. They relied heavily, almost exclusively, on missiles and still managed to deter the United States. If one accepts the basic idea that it is the political value of nuclear weapons that matters, the method of delivery is immaterial.”Ahhh,,,the infamous 'some' who 'say'. It was on the very issue of a determining whether future defense would be based upon a Triad or a Diad (doing away with the manned bomber), that Kent’s analyses washed away Enthoven’s:
“In preference to Dr. Enthoven’s highly simplified approach, which was built entirely around [our] cost, I proposed a more-sophisticated approach. I proposed that we analyze how many targets of the 1,200 would be destroyed under different strategies on both sides, still assuming that SRAMs were 1.5 times as expensive as RVs and further assuming that the Soviets would have to pay the same cost in defenses to defend a target either against an RV or a SRAM.In the same manner as Dr. Enthoven, the authors of the paper and OpEd have opened an issue ‘without thinking it through’.
However, the Soviet Union would have to decide whether to deploy interceptors designed to defeat RVs or interceptors to defeat SRAMs; the same interceptor could not do both jobs.
This more-sophisticated approach turned the tables on the analysis by Dr. Enthoven. He had introduced the concept of a nationwide Soviet defense, thinking it would make his argument more persuasive. But he had not reflected that the Soviets would have to build very different systems to defend against ballistic missiles (RVs) as opposed to rockets (SRAMs) delivered by bombers. Neither had he considered the effects of different strategic choices on both sides. In other words, he had opened the issue of Soviet defenses without thinking it through.”
-text in brackets[] mine.
The above anecdote is also an excellent vehicle for illustrating my next point: Nowhere in the paper do the authors deal with the ‘and then the enemy does what?‘ question. They talk superficially of force, counter-force, etc in economic terms. But I see no evidence they have addressed the possible overt and clandestine moves potential adversaries could make to defeat a piddling 300 or so warheads. As Gen. Kent described Dr Enthoven’s analysis:
"While, in general, I preach that simplicity in analysis is preferred over complexity, in this case, my more-complex approach won. The lesson here is that one must not pursue simple approaches to the point that violence is done to the phenomena under examination. In particular, it is important not to treat the adversary as static. In military affairs, as in most fields of human endeavor, opponents react to each other’s moves. Although this seems obvious, it is surprisingly common for advocates of certain policies or programs to assume that the adversary does not react to our initiative. In the case of Dr. Enthoven’s comparison of Polaris and SRAM, this assumption was a fatal flaw."I see no cold calculations in the author’s analysis where a country with a lot of empty space could attempt to shepherd, grow and move their forces or defenses ‘out of sight and out of mind’. I get no indication of estimations as to how opponents (or allies) will calculate how social constructs might survive or how fast they could be reconstituted, or how such a calculation might encourage a foe to believe they could ride out a ‘minimal’ nuclear exchange. There is no allusion to any analysis as how future potential enemies forming nuclear alliances might have to be be dealt with. So it appears the authors also have rather naively committed Dr. Enthoven’s fatal flaw.
Finally, I really take issue with this most happily-conveyed conclusion of the authors’:
"So long as war remains a finite possibility, we have to be concerned with outcomes, and while some would be bad, others would be worse. In the age of minimum deterrence, the world will have to stand for a few more nuclear states; the majority of them will not pursue nuclear weapons."IMHO, there are many serious problems with this worldview. It strikes me that in their willingness to live in a world with more nuclear powers they are in reality more willing to live with the idea that nuclear strikes or exchanges will become more likely. They would probably be ‘little’ exchanges on the “Acme Armageddon Scale”, but how do you prepare and account for the effect of even one ‘little’ exchange? How do you contain them? Think of nuclear weapons like ‘secrets’: the fewer entities that have them the less likely they will ‘get out’.
The conclusion clearly demonstrates the authors have a skewed view of risk, the definition of which is: probability times the consequences. If we reduce the nuclear arsenals with so little care as that which has been used in the author’s analyses, we potentially increase the as yet unknown probability of a nuclear exchange to result in a nuclear war of some indeterminable (but hopefully less than “world-killer”) scope. How do the authors know that they are not increasing the net risk in their approach? Answer: We can’t find it in the writings so we don’t know. I am particularly wondering if the authors have considered the results if after a 'small' exchange, some not-yet-post-modern society's 'leaders' conclude: "Hey, that wasn't so bad".
It is because of thinking such as that expressed by Doctors Schaub and Forsyth that I say the following prayer almost every day:
"Lord, please protect us from Academics and all other ‘Hybris’-ridden 'Annointed', Amen."
I kid you not.
Note: In the original paper there was another co-author. One presumes that as an Air Force Officer and an honest-to-gosh Strategic Planner (vs, a schoolyard one), he had the good sense and experience to distance himself from the political ho-hah in the OpEd. People shouldn’t read too much into the authors’ teaching at AF institutions. You will find broader ranges of viewpoints and backgrounds in the halls of the Air University than you will ever find in so-called ‘name’ universities.
Updated 5/25 to clarify points and improve readability.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Ann Althouse Debunks Media Wailing on Texas Curriculum
So I don't have to. (Hat tip: Althouse via Instapundit)
Prof. Ann Althouse picks apart another breathless (and deceitful) report from the mainstream media on how Texas is somehow subverting the education of Texas youth.
Thanks Professor! (And my closing statement at the bottom of this post still rings true.)
Updated and Bumped from and earlier post titled:
Leftard Reporter April Castro Shocked! Shocked!
...that the Texas Board of Education moves to De-Leftardize School curriculum.
My Original Post:
In an AP article just published and titled Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences, 'writer' April Castro breathlessly reveals her bottomless ignorance of all things American.
I'd have to review the litany of changes that the Texas Board of Education is making in the 'original' before I would pass judgement of them, but Little Ms. April helpfully provides a few (with obligatory leftist bias I'm sure) examples of the 'radical' moves being made in Texas Ed. My favorite is one of the first ones:
I suppose just about everything looks like it is 'far right' to someone if they can be habitually found grazing in the deep left field.
Update: I knew there would be more breathless and vapid criticisms of Texas Board of Education's making changes to the curriculum and I was right. Seems the Freakonomics twit has poor search engine skills that lead him to some poor conclusions (thanks for the info Volokh!) concerning F.A Hayek.
You couldn't write marketable fiction with characters as dumb as those found in the MSM.
Prof. Ann Althouse picks apart another breathless (and deceitful) report from the mainstream media on how Texas is somehow subverting the education of Texas youth.
Thanks Professor! (And my closing statement at the bottom of this post still rings true.)
Updated and Bumped from and earlier post titled:
Leftard Reporter April Castro Shocked! Shocked!
...that the Texas Board of Education moves to De-Leftardize School curriculum.
My Original Post:
In an AP article just published and titled Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences, 'writer' April Castro breathlessly reveals her bottomless ignorance of all things American.
A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.'Far right faction... injecting conservative ideals' - Got it.
I'd have to review the litany of changes that the Texas Board of Education is making in the 'original' before I would pass judgement of them, but Little Ms. April helpfully provides a few (with obligatory leftist bias I'm sure) examples of the 'radical' moves being made in Texas Ed. My favorite is one of the first ones:
Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic,"...Gee. ah... April honey? The United States IS a frickin' "constitutional republic". See here, here, and here.
I suppose just about everything looks like it is 'far right' to someone if they can be habitually found grazing in the deep left field.
Update: I knew there would be more breathless and vapid criticisms of Texas Board of Education's making changes to the curriculum and I was right. Seems the Freakonomics twit has poor search engine skills that lead him to some poor conclusions (thanks for the info Volokh!) concerning F.A Hayek.
You couldn't write marketable fiction with characters as dumb as those found in the MSM.
Monday, May 17, 2010
AF Side of the KC-45 Story Disappears
At Leeham News And Comment, someone was asking me about a reference showing the AF's position on the lamented late "KC-X Competition of '08". I went looking for such documentation that I had referenced earlier in several places and found that all refernces to it appear to have disappeared on the web. Thus the dead are buried. But unlike John Kerry, I have proof it did exist.
Who knows? Someday it may come in handy.
Update: Ahhhh, cripes. I've let this now dead argument stay waaaay too far under my skin and it is getting to the point that I get 'mean' on it too quickly. I'm swearing off tilting at windmills in the past, at least over at Leeham.
Who knows? Someday it may come in handy.
Update: Ahhhh, cripes. I've let this now dead argument stay waaaay too far under my skin and it is getting to the point that I get 'mean' on it too quickly. I'm swearing off tilting at windmills in the past, at least over at Leeham.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
DADT: Some Milbloggers Miss Target
Obama & Co are subverting Western Society everywhere else, why not the military too? Obama does NOT need your help Milbloggers!
I really don't have time for this, but can't let it pass without comment (which I made at the site linked in the title of this post). I am usually in complete agreement with most of the Milbloggers listed, but today, for some reason that escapes me, they felt a need to speak out on the wrong side of an issue near and dear to my heart. I still might have let it pass, except the Fabulous (usually-right-but -unfortunately-blind-on-this-issue) Instapundit linked into the 'statement' which will gain it traffic and exposure far beyond its relevance. I expect it will be mentioned on the network news in ten, nine, eight......
I've covered all this before ad nauseum here, here, and here.
PS: I just wish people would drop these turds into the punchbowl before OR after I go to work so I can zap them early in the life-cycle.
Now, I've got three DAU module tests to do tonight -- so go away!
I really don't have time for this, but can't let it pass without comment (which I made at the site linked in the title of this post). I am usually in complete agreement with most of the Milbloggers listed, but today, for some reason that escapes me, they felt a need to speak out on the wrong side of an issue near and dear to my heart. I still might have let it pass, except the Fabulous (usually-right-but -unfortunately-blind-on-this-issue) Instapundit linked into the 'statement' which will gain it traffic and exposure far beyond its relevance. I expect it will be mentioned on the network news in ten, nine, eight......
I've covered all this before ad nauseum here, here, and here.
PS: I just wish people would drop these turds into the punchbowl before OR after I go to work so I can zap them early in the life-cycle.
Now, I've got three DAU module tests to do tonight -- so go away!
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Armchair General: Sink the General Belgrano
I had wanted to submit a solution to Armchair General's current command challenge: You are in command of the HMS Conqueror and have been shadowing an Argentine task force consisting of the ARA General Belgrano and two Exocet-armed destroyers. The challenge is to decide the the best course of action (COA) from three provided or perhaps propose a fourth. The major variables are attack timing and weapon choice.
Because of demands on my time (see previous post) I never got around to submitting my solution for this engagement before the deadline yesterday.
For fun, here is my solution:
We'll see what the AG selected 'best' solutions come up with in a couple of months.
BTW: Armchair General as a magazine is kind of a mixed bag for me, but their website is not: it sucks big time (just try to navigate and find something related to the print issue).
Because of demands on my time (see previous post) I never got around to submitting my solution for this engagement before the deadline yesterday.
For fun, here is my solution:
I had a couple of points to add concerning the use of Mk 8s, like rough South Atlantic seas making torpedo trails difficult to spot, but there is a 200 word limit on the solution's submitted.Attack using COA 2 is the best option. You are authorized to engage and you have the primary advantage of surprise to leverage your clear superiority in speed and stealth. If the enemy is lucky or changes their behaviors before you can
attack, the opportunity could be lost.All COAs are feasible, but employing Mk 8s at relatively close range has the highest probability of success. Using proven Mk 8s as your primary attack weapon is the best choice: their large warheads were developed for dealing with armored ship designs of the WW2 era, and the Mk 8s close range and higher speed shortens attack time and the enemy’s response window. One Mk 8 hit might stop the Belgrano, but two would be better. To increase the probabilities of hitting Belgrano twice you add one more Mk 8 to the spread. Since it is always possible something could go wrong even with the Mk 8s, you load the other half of your tubes with Mk24 Tigerfish in reserve. After the first salvo, the Mk 24s are available for immediate use or to standoff and engage any of the known or unknown (submarines) enemy elements as becomes necessary.
We'll see what the AG selected 'best' solutions come up with in a couple of months.
BTW: Armchair General as a magazine is kind of a mixed bag for me, but their website is not: it sucks big time (just try to navigate and find something related to the print issue).
No time for Blogging
For a while now, and for a while to come, there is no time for blogging (or much else) due to my making a change in jobs. Getting up to speed in my new position and completeing DAU courses for the immediate future is Job One.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)