This is the seventh in a series. The first one can be found at http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2012/07/50-years-of-science-part-1.html. Part 2 can be found in the August 2012 section of this blog. Parts 3 and 4 can be found in the September 2012 section. Parts 5 and 6 can be found in the March 2016 section. I take the Isaac Asimov book "The Intelligent Man's Guide to the Physical Sciences" as my baseline for the state of science as it was when he wrote the book (1959 - 1960). More than 50 years have now passed but I am going to stick with the original title anyhow even though it is now slightly inaccurate. In these posts I am reviewing what he reported and examining what has changed since. For this post I am starting with the chapter Asimov titled "The Layers of the Planet" and then moving to "The Ocean" and finishing with "The Ice Caps". These three chapters finish his "The Earth" section.
Asimov starts with the great Lisbon earthquake of 1755. The actual quake was followed by a "tidal wave", what we now call a Tsunami. But at the time Asimov was writing the connection between earthquakes and Tsunamis was poorly understood. Recent history has given us the giant Tsunamis following giant earthquakes in Indonesia and Japan. The Indonesian event was an especial wakeup call because the Tsunami crossed thousands of miles of ocean to wreck devastation on far flung coastlines.
Prior to the Indonesia event computer models of Tsunamis had been developed but they were pretty primitive. They have since been substantially improved. But the biggest change is seen with respect to warning systems. An urgent need was finally recognized and acted on to develop international warning systems. There is now at least the beginnings of a network covering the Pacific and Indian oceans.
The earthquake and Tsunami that struck Japan is now remembered (at least outside Japan) mostly for the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The fact that billions of dollars worth of damage was sustained and tens of thousands of lives were lost in the part of the disaster that did not involve the nuclear plants is now pretty much forgotten.
And on a side note, there was a large earthquake off the coast of Washington State in 1700. We even know the day it happened. How? Because it spawned a Tsunami that traveled several thousand miles across the Pacific ocean and was still large enough to cause a noteworthy amount of damage when it struck Japan. So the Japanese made a record of it down to the exact date and time it came ashore. And this record was recently matched back to the earthquake off the Washington coast. Now back to Asimov.
The Lisbon earthquake kicked off the serious study of earthquakes in the western world. (The Chinese and Japanese, among others, had already been studying the subject for millennia.) The seismograph, then an assortment of pens, springs, and weights, was developed in 1855. Only modest improvements had been introduced in time for Asimov's book. Currently, seismographs are constructed from the same kinds of electronic components used in computers and cell phones.
The new designs are ruggeder, more accurate, and have a larger "dynamic range". The old designs used to peg out during a large close earthquake. This meant that only devices located a goodly distance away and, therefore, only able to record a weak and distorted signal, could provide data on the strongest part of the earthquake. The newer devices are able to make accurate and detailed readings of even the largest earthquakes even if they are close to the epicenter.
In 1890, Asimov writes, Milne determined that some of the waves from an earthquake traveled through the earth. This allowed earthquakes to be used as a diagnostic to study the inside of the earth. The earthquake is like a flashbulb going off. Various recording stations around the world act like photocells. A large amount of analysis allows some of the characteristics of the earth the signal travels through to be determined.
Earthquakes literally shake the earth. These waves radiate out and are hopefully captured by a seismometer. And the actual situation is more complex than you would think. Two kinds of waves are emitted: surface waves and body waves. The body waves are subdivided into P- primary waves and S - secondary waves. I am going to skip the details and just note that geologists could tell them apart and use the different characteristics of each to tease out information about the rock the wave passed through. Asimov goes into some detail on this but here's the main discovery.
The earth has layers. There is a thin layer called the crust. That's the only part we can directly observe. It is only a few tens of miles thick. The center of the earth contains the core. This is mostly Iron. The in between part is the mantle. Fifty years ago little was known beyond the sizes of the surface, mantle, and core. Today thousands of seismometers are deployed. They are more accurate and we now have access to unbelievable amounts of computing power. So we know a lot more detail.
The inner part of the core is solid. Iron can hold a magnetic field and that's where the magnetic field of the earth comes from. The solid inner core is surrounded by a relatively thin liquid outer core. This allows a certain amount of independence between the rotation of the inner core and that of the rest of the earth. The mantle has two layers, the inner mantle and the outer mantle. Within each component (the mantle is liquid but just barely) are cells of rotating material. This allows warmer and cooler material to move around. There is a certain amount of radioactivity throughout all of the mantle and the core. This radioactivity produces heat and this heat has to go somewhere. That's what drives the movement of material. And this movement of material and need to get rid of the excess heat is what drives volcanism and ocean floor spreading. Note: Ocean floor spreading and Plate Tectonics were unknown at the time of the book.
At the time the book was written the major earthquake zones had been mapped out (Asimov supplies a nice map) and earthquakes were associated by proximity with mountain building. But the connection was a mystery. Plate Tectonics, which was developed in the decade after the book was published, solved the problem. The continents were composed of relatively light materials that floated over the mantle material. Ocean floor material was substantially denser (English translation: heavier). And the cell structure created upwellings where fresh material is brought to the top and downwellings where the opposite happened. On top of upwellings were spreading centers, areas where new crust was created. This new crust pushed the older crust toward trenches, which sat on top of downwelling zones.
The upwelling brings up hot mantle material which cools off as it radiates heat through the crust and from there through the atmosphere and into space. The now cool material is eventually returned to depth when it gets to a downwelling area. So that completes the process of getting rid of the heat generated by radioactive decay. Meanwhile continents float on top of the mantle material and are pushed around. This results in collisions. Denser ocean floor material dives below the continental material at a "subduction zone". The process isn't perfect. In particular water and other chemicals are squeezed out of the rock as it dives down under the edge of the continent. This material rises through cracks and channels in the crust and ends up emerging from volcanos like Mt. St. Helens.
And not all rock is the same. In other words, the chemical composition of the material that was squeezed out differs from place to place. So lava spewed by different volcanos behaves differently. The kind of lava that comes up at Mt. St. Helens tends to make volcanoes explode. The kind of lava that comes up under Mt. Etna in Italy or Mt. Kilauea in Hawaii tends to put on a spectacular display but not blow up. The study of the chemistry of lava was just beginning at the time the book was written.
At the time of the book there was a lot of talk about the "Moho". This was a seismic feature that looked interesting and appeared to be shallow enough that it could possibly be reached by drilling a very deep well. After Asimov's book was published this was attempted but the attempt was unsuccessful. Now scientists find the Moho less interesting and not much attention is paid to it these days.
To his credit Asimov mentions Wegner. He was a German geologist who pioneered the idea of "continental drift" which eventually morphed into Plate Tectonics. Asimov mentions that his ideas had been discredited. They were later revived because more information became available. The ocean floors were mapped using SONAR. This led to the discovery of the midatlantic ridge, a line of underwater volcanoes running roughly down the center of the Atlantic ocean. And a series of magnetic bands were discovered that indicated that new ocean floor material was spreading out from each side of the ridge. This seafloor spreading provided the mechanism that drove continental drift.
Asimov also mentions a theory of Darwin (astronomer son of the more famous Charles Darwin). He posited that the moon was somehow carved out of the earth. At the time of writing this idea too was out of favor. But it does contain a grain of truth, at least according to the current thinking on lunar formation. Current thinking is that a mars sized body made a glancing collision with earth. This threw a lot of material into orbit around the earth. This material, consisting in large part of earth crustal material, eventually coalesced into the moon. All the heavy minerals like Iron ended up with the earth. Only light materials ended up with the moon. This solves a puzzle that Asimov makes note of. The puzzle was why the composition of the moon looked very similar to the composition of the earth's crust.
Asimov makes note of a then controversy over whether the earth was ever completely molten. Modern thinking is that it was completely molten at some point in its early life. This controversy has been replaced by a contemporary debate about the origin of the water that makes up our oceans. I am not going to go into it but, trust me, the debate between the supporters of various theories is quite lively.
An early theory for why we have mountains is that the earth was shrinking because it was cooling. This resulted in a raisin effect. This theory is now discredited. Plate Tectonics works better and we now know the earth is not cooling. But as part of the discussion of this subject Asimov does go into radioactivity as a source of heat. At the time there was not enough known about this sort of thing to go from speculation to solid theory. At the same time the beginnings of the mantle circulation idea I discussed above were just receiving serious consideration. And there wasn't enough known about this sort of thing at the time to sort out the good ideas from the bad.
On to "The Ocean". At the time of writing earth's oceans (or, as Asimov correctly notes, ocean - they are all interconnected) were the only known ones in the solar system. This is still technically true. But it is strongly suspected that one or more of the moons that orbit the outer planets has a liquid ocean underneath its icy surface. No ocean has been definitively observed but a lot of very solid evidence points toward their existence. There is so much evidence that the discussion has moved on to the possibility that life might be possible there.
Asimov reels off some interesting statistics then notes "[a]lmost certainly the first forms of life originated . . ." in the oceans. This statement is still true. He then goes on to say "[e]ven today astronomers know more about the surface of the moon than geologists know about the surface of the earth under the oceans". This statement is now debatable but it's a close call. We now know a lot more about the ocean floor than we did then. But we also know a lot more about the surface of the moon. Consider this.
A jumbo jet crashed into the ocean somewhere off the coast of Australia a couple of years ago. If it had crashed on the surface of the moon we would know exactly where it crashed by now. But we don't know where on the ocean floor it is after spending more than a year looking very hard for it. All we have is a small amount of debris that has washed ashore thousands of miles from where it no doubt went down to show that it has not just disappeared into thin air.
Asimov credits the founding of modern oceanography to Maury. He then goes on to say that "the ocean currents have been thoroughly mapped." That was an exaggeration. The general outline of the major surface currents was known. But we now know that there are currents at every level of the ocean and almost nothing was known about these subsurface currents at that time. We also know that ocean currents are quite dynamic. They can speed up, slow down, change direction, perhaps stop altogether for a time. None of that was really understood back then. Scientists consider the modern study of ocean currents "early times". They think they still have way more to learn than what they know now. Scientists back then saw some hints of what was to come but only hints.
Asimov singles out temperature differences as the driver of ocean currents. Certainly temperature differences are a major factor. But wind patterns, tidal effects, Coriolis effects, and several other effects, also play a role. At that time the surface of what there was to learn in this area had not even been scratched. It has now been scratched but that's about it. The tremendous difficulty involved in working under the pressure and visibility conditions present in the oceans mean studying anything about them is a very slow and very expensive process.
Asimov associates the start of serious study of the deep ocean floor with an 1850 effort by Maury to develop a chart for use in laying the first telegraph cable to cross the Atlantic. The project took 15 years and the suffered many delays and setbacks along the way. In the 1870's the ship Challenger set out to do a more complete survey of all the oceans. But the only tool they had for measuring depth was a long cable with a big heavy weight on its end. The ocean is several miles deep in many places. It was a slow and difficult process to pay out and reel back in that much cable.
SONAR and its predecessors were introduced in the early twentieth century. By mid-century rough SONAR based maps of the entire ocean floor were available. But they were very rough and little was known other than depth information. Asimov notes that if you start counting from the foot of the mountain deep in the ocean then the highest mountains on earth are in Hawaii. (The solar system record is currently held by a mountain on Mars.) SONAR mapping of ocean floor has also indicated that some land features extend far into the ocean. He cites the Hudson river as an example of this. We now know that the theory that some ocean bottom features are "gouged out by turbulent flows of soil-laden water" is the correct one.
Very little was then known about the bottom of the ocean. Drilling devices had been lowered to the ocean floor and used to pull up "cores" of earth that could be studied. But this had only been done in a few places. More cores have since been pulled up but coverage is still extremely sparse.
Other investigations have turned up "great smokers" on the bottom of the ocean. These are places where hot spots (think volcanic processes) suck cold water into porous rock. The water flushes through and picks up all kinds of chemicals. This water, often discolored to the point where it looks like smoke, is then flushed out through chimneys. This process can take place in water that is quite deep. So it was shocking to discover "tube worms", crabs, and other creatures living so far away from sunshine. Some people now think life on earth may have originated in these extreme conditions.
Asimov observes that by 1872 scientists had determined that life permeated the depths of the oceans. (The earlier idea was that it was confined to within a few hundred feet of the surface.) We have still not filled the details of this picture out. We also know more about the strange (to us) metabolism of these creatures. But they are hard to capture and hard to study. As Asimov observes, these creatures "are so adapted . . . that they are unable to rise out of their trench".
He then mentions the giant squid. Scientists have since found many larger than average squids but have yet to find a truly giant one. He then moves on to "living fossils". He was talking about the coelacanth. For some time it was thought to be extinct. Then a fisherman caught one in 1938. At the time of writing only a few other examples were known. Now we know that it is relatively common. It just lives in deep water where no one normally drops a hook.
Asimov wraps the chapter up with a section on deep diving. 300 feet was then thought to be the limit for a diver wearing some kind of soft suit. Modern equipment and procedures allow people go deeper but only a few hundred feet deeper. By the time the book was written various deep diving submarines had been developed. This effort culminated in the Trieste, which was capable of (and did) going to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, the deepest part of the ocean. At the time of the book only a few deep dives had been done.
Deep dives are now more common but still relatively rare. James Cameron, the director of the movie "Titanic", built a one man vessel that allowed him to dive to the bottom of the Challenger Deep. Someone has developed a hard shell diving suit that is capable of diving to great depths but not all the way to the bottom of the Challenger Deep. But any deep dive is still extremely expensive. The current state of the art is robot submarines that are capable of diving to the ocean floor in all but a few particularly deep places. Not having to carry all the equipment necessary to keep people alive cuts the cost somewhat but they are still very expensive to build and operate.
On to "The Ice Caps". Asimov starts the chapter with a review of efforts to reach the north pole. It was finally reached by Perry in 1909. Now a trip back is much less of a big deal. The nuclear submarine Nautilus reached the pole in the '60s by going under the polar ice pack. The whole area under the ice has now been charted by the US, the Russians, and probably others. One reason behind this activity is that there may be oil there. The Prudhoe Bay field that feeds that Alaska pipeline in on the north coast of Alaska. Thinking there might also be oil a little farther north is not an unreasonable thought.
As Asimov notes, the original impetus for polar expeditions was to search for a northwest passage. After a lot of failure such a passage was presumed to be a myth. Its former mythical state is now, as they say, "greatly exaggerated". Global warming has caused the polar ice pack to shrink so much in the late summer that in most years pretty much any ocean going ship can transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific or, if they prefer, the Pacific to the Atlantic, with little difficulty.
Asimov's starts his discussion of the Antarctic with another list of explorers. The task of getting to the south pole was tougher because Antarctica is much larger. And there is a continent under the ice so you can't just submarine your way to it. The south pole was finally reached in 1911 by Amundson. The '20s saw the creation of the first Antarctic research stations. The amount of scientific research conducted on the continent jumped considerably during the International Geophysical Year (actually an 18 month period) that ended in December of 1958. Many countries made a big push to mount scientific expeditions to Antarctica during the IGY.
This burst of activity was quickly followed up by treaties to de-militarize (no standing armies allowed) and de-politicize (no country could make territorial claims) Antarctica permanently. Since then a number of countries including the US operate year round scientific facilities on the continent. They mostly beetle away doing science. But every once in a while people start paying attention when someone gets seriously sick during the Antarctic winter and a tricky evacuation must be performed.
But serious science is done there. A giant particle detector has been created by taking clever advantage of the fact that the Antarctic ice is more than a mile thick and very clear in a number of places. The Russians recently drilled a hole through miles of ice down to a lake that is still liquid to see what a body of water that was so cold for so long and so isolated for so long contained in terms of life forms. Those are just two scientific endeavors that come easily to mind. There are many more.
Asimov notes that 86% of all ice in the world is in Antarctica and another 10% is in Greenland. All the glaciers that are more accessible combine to total only 4%. But those more accessible 4% were the fodder for the science of glaciology. It was kicked off in Switzerland in the 1820s. Glaciers are like rivers. They can move rocks. They just do it slowly, at a glacial pace, one might say. Debris left by a melting glacier is distinctive. So once geologists started looking around they found it in many unexpected places. By the 1850's the study of this glacial debris led to the discovery of the ice ages. At various times in roughly the last hundred thousand years large parts of the earth have been covered by glaciers.
The repeated advance and retreat of the various ice ages has drastically changed the topology of the land in many places. In my area there are many valley features that run north to south. This is the result of glaciers scouring out deep trenches as they initially grew south then eventually retreated north. Asimov pegged the last glacial retreat as having happened between 8,000 and 12,000 years ago. You can select among a variety of dates for the end of the last ice age. It just depends on what is important to you. The maximum extent of glaciation was 22,000 years ago. By 13,000 years ago the glaciers were definitely in retreat. But there was still a lot of ice around 7,000 years ago. So pick whatever date you like best.
When the last ice age ended is important for many reasons. But one of them has to do with figuring out when humans got to the Americas. There is still serious disagreement as to when this happened. There is general agreement that they came from Asia and the presumption is that they crossed from eastern Siberia into Alaska and then moved south. But there is a big argument as to whether they took an inland route or a coastal route. Neither was an option 22,000 years ago when the ice age was at its maximum. But possible routes depend on details about when ice retreated from certain specific places. And that's tricky to determine. And there's another problem.
As Asimov points out glaciers took a lot of water out of circulation. That means that oceans were a lot lower than they are now. At one time sea level was 440 feet lower than it is now. So what level was it at when humans were crossing to America? It depends on when they crossed but it was definitely lower then. Why is this important? If they went along the coast and if the water level was say 50 feet lower then most of the traces of this migration are now under water. Scientists have gone looking for these traces. But as I noted above it's hard to search under the sea. They haven't found much of anything so far.
Back to Asimov. He notes that coal was found in Norway and signs of coal have been found in Antarctica. What's going on? He opines that there have been times when the weather was so warm that there was no ice anywhere on earth so maybe that's what was going on. Plate Tectonics lets us figure out what was going on with far more certainty than Asimov could muster. Continents move around. This means that what might now be at the pole could have been at the equator at some time in the past. And that's part of what's going on. Continents have also been broken up and jammed together at various times. At one time all the current continents were part of a single super-continent and it was oriented so that there were good growing conditions everywhere. Lots of plants plus a lot of geology gives you coal.
The "forcings" that began and ended ice ages were not really understood at the time the book was written. One component of this is called Milankovich cycles and Asimov discusses them. The angle between the earth's orbit and the axis of rotation is currently 22 degrees. That tilt results in our seasons. In the Summer the tilt causes the northern hemisphere to get more sun and the southern to get less. In the winter the situation is reversed. Various astronomical processes change this angle. The evolution of this angle is determined by the Milankovitch cycle. If the cycle forces the rotation axis to be straight up and down things work differently and the weather works differently. At the time of the book Milankovich cycles were known about but they didn't seem up to be strong enough to explain long term patterns by themselves. How the effects they do cause can be multiplied is better understood now. And we know about the movement of continents and that helps too. But there is still some "forcings" mystery left.
Asimov then explains a trick still in common use. You study the ratio of Oxygen-16 to Oxygen-18. Urey figured out how to translate this information into ocean temperature in 1950. Asimov published a graph of average ocean temperature for the last hundred million years based on this technique. The ocean used to be a lot warmer, the graph indicates. Asimov credits the cooling of the oceans over time that the graph displays as the reason the dinosaurs went extinct. We now know that they actually went extinct pretty much all at once when a large meteorite hit the Yucatán area of Mexico 65 million years ago.
Asimov also describe the greenhouse effect. Again it was well known in the '50s that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in increases in air temperature. He even calculates that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would raise temperatures by three degrees. Asimov uses Fahrenheit for our convenience. The Celsius equivalent that scientists use is 1.65 degrees. Conversely, the 2 degree Celsius change scientists talk about with respect to global warming is 3.6 Fahrenheit degrees.
And for all those "global warming was invented in the '80s" types, Asimov says that a drop of 3 1/2 degrees would bring on an ice age and an increase of 3 1/2 degrees would melt all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The 2 degrees Celsius that scientists now talk about is almost exactly the same as the 3 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit Asimov talked about in 1960. In actual fact the basic science behind global warming goes back to the '50s and has changed little since. What has changed is the political climate. Then no one cared. Now powerful forces want us to believe that global warming is some kind of hoax cooked up in the '80s for obscure nefarious reasons. Want more evidence that the science behind global warming dates back to the '50s?
If you melted all the water in Antarctica and Greenland, Asimov tells us, the oceans would raise by 200 feet. We are now arguing about a sea level rise of a few feet in the next 50-100 years if global warming goes the way scientists think it will. And in spite of the fact that this sounds like no big deal it would actually be devastating for reasons too complicated to go into. Almost all people live on or near coasts. And if a sea level rise of a few feet does not sound scary enough just think about the 200 foot sea level rise (not my number, Asimov's) that would be caused if we melted all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Scientists don't think it would all melt. Well, not in the next hundred years. But what if they are wrong?
He also gets into what is called the carbon cycle. Over geologic time periods there are processes that pull carbon dioxide out of the air and turn it into rock. There are also ways to turn the rock back into carbon dioxide gas in the air. So they can save us by getting carbon dioxide levels back to where they need to be, right? The problem is that these processes take tens of thousands of years. We don't have that long to wait.
Pretty much everything a scientist would need in order to put together a presentation on global warming is found in this chapter of Asimov's book. And that presentation based solely on data from Asimov would differ from one based on the latest data in only minor ways. The main thrust and general conclusions would be identical. And Asimov's book was written more than fifty years ago.
The next post in the series will be based on material from his "The Atmosphere" section.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Sunday, August 14, 2016
MAD History
The "MAD" in the title is an acronym. It stands for Mutual Assured Destruction. It was popularized in the '60s when nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy were important subjects of discussion and people were expected to have an informed opinion on them. By the time the '60s came to an end the subject had, for the most part, faded to the background. Reagan revived it for a time in the '80s but not at the level of intensity of previous times. It has since faded to almost complete invisibility. "What? Is that still a thing?" is the extent of most people's recent thinking on the subject. And then Trump came along. It is one of dozens of subjects he has treated irresponsibly. It has become apparent to me that a refresher on the subject is now in order.
Nuclear Physicists of the late '30s were the first to theorize that "nuclear reactions" could produce fantastic amounts of energy. Why? Because of Einstein's famous "E equals M C squared" equation. Colloquially translated it says you can turn a tiny amount of matter into a whole lot of energy. The reverse is also true. You can change a whole lot of energy into a tiny amount of matter. But no one wants to do that. Anyhow, they noticed that if they smashed atoms sometimes a small amount of mass (the scientific term for matter) went missing. The mass was transformed into energy, a lot of energy. And a lot of energy getting released quickly is an explosion.
This set off the race to create the atomic or "A" bomb. Richard Rhodes has written an excellent book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", that goes into the effort necessary to do this in great detail. (He also wrote a very good follow up, "Dark Sun", about the Hydrogen bomb.) It was a race because the Germans were trying to do the same thing. Details on their efforts can be found in the excellent "Heisenberg's War" by Thomas Powers. Spoiler: the first effort succeeded while the second one failed.
The U.S dropped two A bombs on Japan. Each released roughly 10 kilotons of energy. How much is that? The biggest conventional World War II bomb was the "block buster", so called because it was powerful enough to level a city block. It contained 10,000 pounds (or 5 tons) of high explosive. So the bombs dropped on Japan were roughly 2,000 times as powerful. Each one leveled a city.
The Russians developed a similar bomb only a few years later. An extensive and successful spying effort was only partly responsible. This led to the race to develop the "H" (for Hydrogen) bomb. The original A bombs (there were several designs) were "fission" bombs. You hit the nucleus of a Uranium atom with a neutron and it broke into pieces (a fission process). The pieces weighed slightly less than the original atom so energy was released. Smashing two Hydrogen atoms together (a fusion process) could, in the right circumstances, produce a single Helium atom. And it weighed less than the two Hydrogen atoms that went into its creation. And it turned out that the amount of energy released by this single "fusion" reaction was a lot more than the its equivalent fission reaction. So an H bomb could be a lot more powerful.
H bombs are rated in megatons, millions of tons of energy, not thousands. One A bomb could wipe out a small city like Hiroshima. An H bomb could wipe out the biggest of cities, say New York, and also take out a big chunk of the surrounding countryside. But it turns out that there is a point of diminishing returns. H bombs are so powerful that they literally blow the top off of our roughly 100 mile thick atmosphere. This creates a funnel and as it gets bigger more and more of the bomb's energy gets funneled out into space. Anything bigger than about 10 megatons just throws more energy into space without flattening more of the countryside. And this is just the first example of the topsy turvey logic that routinely surfaces when talking about nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy.
The A bomb that the US dropped on Nagasaki was the last A bomb the US possessed at the time. Fortunately Japan sued for surrender a couple of days later so it didn't matter. And at the time there didn't seem to be any rush to make more. That changed when the Russians exploded their A bomb. All of a sudden it seemed important to have lots of them on hand. And it was important not just to be able to make them but also to be able to deliver them to whatever presumably Russian target we chose to select.
By this time Japan was an ally and Russia was the enemy. When the US dropped its two A bombs on Japan we had been at war with them for several years and had achieved total air superiority. So we could just fly our B-29 bombers wherever we wanted to and drop the bombs wherever we wanted to. But Russia had an extensive and sophisticated military that had a powerful and sophisticated air defense system that would need to be overcome should we wish to "nuke" them.
This caused the US to spend a lot of money and, among other things, develop the B-52 bomber. The first one was built in the late '50s and the last one, the B-52H, was built midway through the '60s. Even so it was not considered a sure thing. An entertaining way to learn something of what would be involved is to take a look at the classic Stanley Kubrick movie "Dr. Strangelove: or how I learned to love the bomb".
There was another thing going on. The SAC (Strategic Air Command) initiative that included the B-52 was a US Air Force show. And that left the other services, especially the US Navy, out. The Navy's response was to develop the guided missile submarine, commonly referred to as a "boomer". This was barely possible to pull off in the '60s but a decade or so later the Navy deployed the Ohio class submarine and its associated Trident missile. This missile carrying submarine became the second leg of what was eventually called "the nuclear triad". (The bombers constituted the first leg.)
The Russians put a small satellite called Sputnik into orbit around the earth in '57. This was scary because it was thought that any missile powerful enough to put a satellite in orbit, even a small one, was powerful enough to hurdle a nuke thousands of miles. It could be made into an ICBM, an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. At the time there was no defense against ICBMs. So a bunch of rockets were built and put into "silos" in the '60s. This was the third leg of the nuclear triad.
It would have made sense for this to be an Army project as this would give each of the three major services its own leg. But in a deft political maneuver the Air Force retained control of the missiles. So the final score was: Air Force - 2; Navy - 1, and Army - 0. This caused the Army out of a sense of desperation to develop a miniaturized A bomb that could be fired from a big gun, an artillery field piece. This was styled a "tactical nuclear weapons system" and was thought by some people to be suitable for use on the battlefield. Does this sound crazy or what?
Well, I did warn you about topsy turvey thinking. And that brings me back to MAD. A justification can be made for the US use of nukes in World War II. I think it is a legitimate justification but I don't want to go into this in the depth necessary to justify my position now. And what became slowly apparent in the decades following World War II was that nuclear weapons were just too horrible in the amount of death and destruction they produced to actually be used. There were serious and prolonged discussions about using them in the Korean War. But the very same President who authorized their use in World War II, Harry Truman, also decided to not use them in Korea. There were some times when things were going really bad for the US in that war but he decided "no" anyhow.
By the time Vietnam came along there was a strong consensus that they should not be used there. And remember this is the same '60s that saw the B-52 program wrapping up, the US ICBM system built and deployed and the development and early deployment of missile carrying submarines. So it was not as if there wasn't a lot of talking and thinking going on about nukes. And there was a hell of a lot of money being spent on them by the military at the time. The military's thinking goes strongly along the lines of "if you have it - use it". But the '60s was also the time that the concept of MAD became completely accepted. So what's the MAD concept and why did it cause the military to eventually be okay with not using nukes?
It is associated with one word: deterrence. "If both sides have them then neither side will use them." But there have been many examples of "them" where both sides had them and used them. Just to cite one example, both sides had and used airplanes in World War I. So what was different about nukes? To explain, I need to discuss "first strike" and "second strike".
Say you have a missile in a silo. What and why is a silo? In this case it is a heavily fortified hole in the ground. The idea is that if the bad guys don't whap the silo directly on the head and don't also hit it really hard the rocket in the silo will still work just fine when the dust settles. So what's the best way to take a silo and the missile it contains out? A nuke, of course. If you can explode a nuke close to the silo it will wreck enough destruction to take the missile out. This is an example of a first strike. If you strike first (and especially if you take them by surprise) and if you can take out enough of their stuff then they don't have enough left to launch an effective second strike (a strike that is launched after your first strike).
At this point in the discussion it appears that the best military strategy is to strike first. And that's a good way to make World War III happen. It didn't take long to figure this out. So what's the counter? Again, there is a single word: survivability. If enough of your stuff survives a first strike to give you the ability to make a powerful second strike then a first strike all of a sudden becomes a bad idea.
Hardened missile silos are a part of this. If you do it right then the bad guys must be able to very accurately target their bombs and the bombs must get through. With bombers it meant putting up a powerful air defense to guard against enemy bombers was a good idea. The US put together NORAD and the DEW line (what they actually are is not that important so I am going to skip that). The Russians did the same thing. Stealth did not exist at that time. So if you say launched a first strike bomber attack you were gambling that you could surprise the other side. If you didn't they could just launch everything too. There would be nothing left on the ground when your bombers got to their bases. You were also gambling that your bombers could somehow make it through in great enough numbers to deliver a knockout punch. You were never 100% sure it would work so a first strike was always a risk.
With missiles it took one missile to take out another missile so the math did not work out. MIRV (I'll get to what it is later) came later. Submarines were basically impossible to find but at the time they were hard to communicate with and, for various reasons, not that accurate. And both sides built and deployed a lot of gear. Even if you got say 80% of it there was so much left. And having three legs of the triad meant if you figured out how to deal with two of the legs the third leg was enough. You had to take out all three legs at the same time or it wouldn't work.
And that brings us to MAD. If both sides are pretty sure that the other side can do serious damage even after a first strike then we have a "mutually assured destruction" scenario. In that scenario it is obviously best all around if no one starts anything. And that's what happened. No nuclear weapon has been used in anger since August of 1945.
But it is important to understand that this situation is fragile. It depends on MAD. So let's look at how to un-mutual things. The first thing is to improve the likelihood of the nuke getting through. You "stealth" the airplane. This is hard to do. But hard really only means expensive. The better you can make your offensive capability the better the other guys have to make their defensive capability. The basic idea of the B-52 was "fly high". But the Russians shot down a U-2 spy plane successfully in 1960 and U-2s fly a lot higher than B-52s. And RADAR has gotten better. And there are other tricks. They too are expensive but there are ways to detect stealth planes.
How about missiles? Well, there's MIRV. MIRV stands for Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles. If you put 10 nukes on one missile then you can take out 10 silos with one missile, if they are accurate. If you have the same number of missiles and silos as the other guy you can use 10% of your missiles to take out all of his missiles. That leaves 90% of your missiles to use to wipe out his cities. MIRV technology was extremely destabilizing. The only argument for it was "if we don't do it they will do it and we will be in trouble". Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments frequently carry the day.
One piece of good news is that battlefield nukes were quietly retired. No reason was ever given but it was good thing. But battlefield nukes are the basis for "suitcase" nukes. The scenario is that a bad guy carries a nuke across the border in a suitcase and gets by customs. He then sets it up in a city, gets out of dodge and a short time later, boom -- no city. Fortunately, so far this scenario has remained an entirely fictional one. And just how big and how heavy a suitcase nuke would have to be is deeply classified so we don't know how practical it actually is. Both the Russians and the US claim they have dismantled all their tactical nukes. So maybe we really don't have anything to worry about here.
Submarines used to not be able to determine their position very accurately. And missiles were even less capable of accurately guiding themselves. But we now have GPS. If a GPS receiver can be fit into an iPhone it can certainly be fit into a submarine and a missile. So the whole accuracy problem has been completely fixed when it comes to submarines and missiles. And that too is a destabilizing development.
And the nuclear artillery shell has been replaced by the cruise missile. Early cruise missiles were explicitly designed to carry nuclear weapons. And cruise missiles are very good at defeating air defense systems. The US did a deal with Russia and there are now no more nuclear cruise missiles being deployed. The development and deployment of nuclear cruise missiles is definitely a destabilizing development because they are so hard to detect or stop.
Both the US and Russia spent a number of decades growing their nuclear arsenals. This was shorthanded to the Arms Race. And fortunately both sides at some point decided "this is stupid". Both sides were spending fantastic amounts of money in the pursuit of security and it wasn't working. Things came to a head under the Reagan Administration. Reagan proposed something called the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, but usually referred to by its unofficial nickname: Star Wars. Every cockamamie idea anyone had come up with for how to build a nuclear shield that would actually defend effectively against a nuclear attack was trotted out.
Experts looked at each and every one. They quickly found holes in all of them. Either the technique would never work or there was a cheap and simple fix that would render the technique ineffective. But in the short run these arguments were ignored. Instead billions of dollars had to be poured into the ideas. And, as had been predicted each and every idea flamed out, often spectacularly. The US spent many billions of dollars. This in turn caused the Russians to spend many billions of dollars. Neither side made any progress. Fortunately, this laid the ground work for some great arms reduction initiatives late in Reagan's second term. It also ended up spelling the death knell for the idea of trying to beat the MAD system. Until Trump came along pretty much everyone decided that the prudent course was to leave everything alone.
That is except for one thing. How about getting rid of nukes? The obvious place to start was to begin reducing the size of the arsenals. The early going was easy. Both sides had way more nukes than they needed so it was easy to get an agreement to scale things back. And that agreement worked well so we have since seen a number of agreements for scaling things back even more. Continue the process long enough and you get to zero. And a large number of people think zero is a good number. Their argument is simple. If there are no nukes then there are no nukes and it is impossible for something horrible to go wrong. And as far as it goes it's a good argument.
But if we have no nukes what happens of someone gets a few nukes? Then you have real problems. There are a number of current nuclear powers. It is not hard for them to save away the know how. And that means that they could go from no nukes to some nukes pretty quickly. And numbered among these are Pakistan and North Korea. Neither of these countries are known for their stability and their commitment to rationality. A world where only North Korea has nukes is a truly scary place.
But getting the whole "nuclear deterrent" thing to work only depends on having a few nukes, say a couple of hundred. That is more than enough. So how about setting a target of say 200-400? That makes perfect sense to me. But there are practical problems.
Remember the whole "each service needs its toy" thing I laid out above. It's still true. A lot of military types, both the uniform types and the bureaucratic types, measure their worth by the size of their budget. A lot of waste and fraud in the military sector can be traced to efforts to get one budget or another increased to the same size as the ego of the man (or rarely woman) in charge. And lots of these people are very skilled political infighters.
Let's look at the Navy because I have the numbers handy for them. Their current boomer is the Ohio class submarine. Originally it carried 24 trident missiles in 24 launch tubes. And each of them was MIRVed so that it had 10 warheads. (BTW, the fact that the warhead count is 10 is widely known but top secret anyhow.) So each Ohio class submarine had 240 nukes onboard. And, if we assume a fleet of 10, that's a total of 2,400 nukes in the fleet. That's a lot of nukes and it represents only one of three legs of the US nuclear triad.
Now let's look at the limits set by the most recent nuclear treaty, the "New START" (START - STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty - always assume an acronym unless proven otherwise) treaty. The US (Russia must adhere to the same limits) is allowed a total of 700 deployed ICBMs (missiles in silos), SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles - Tridents), and heavy bombers (B-52s or the newer B-1s and B-2s). These can include a total of 1,550 warheads. The US is also allowed a total of 800 "deployed and non-deployed" launchers. If we have all 700 allowed deployed launchers then an additional 100 non-deployed, i.e. down for maintenance and upgrades, etc., launchers would be allowed. If we have fewer deployed launchers we can have more non-deployed launchers.
But according to the math above Ohio class submarines account for 240 of 700 (34%) allowed launchers and 2,400 of 1,550 (160%) warheads. Oops! It turns out that the US has down-rated the submarines from 24 to 16 launch tubes. So we have 160 missiles and 1,600 warheads. (I presume that the Tridents have been down rated from 10 warheads to some lesser number. But its all classified so I don't know what the number is.)
And in this topsey turvery world the US and Russia agree to do what would otherwise be really stupid things. They routinely do certain things in certain ways so that the other side can verify what they are doing by using spy satellites. That's how the Russians know that 8 launch tubes are disabled. I have no idea how they know how much the MIRV count has been reduced on the missiles. In a normal world each country would go to great lengths to hide what they were up to.
But wait. There's more. The Ohio class submarines have been around a while. Well, not as long as the B-52's but still. Anyhow, that means that the Navy has plans for a replacement. God knows what each new submarine will cost. The Navy plan is for 12 boats, each of which will have 16 launch tubes. That's 192 missiles or 27% of the total allowed number. The MIRV factor is classified so I don't know what the total warhead count will be for whatever missile is eventually used. This all fits (just barely) under the current limits. (Remember the Air Force is fighting for each and every bomber and missile it can and the Army is still feeling seriously left out.)
But how many boats and how many missiles per boat we need and what MIRV factor should we expect if everything has to fit under a 400 warhead cap. Trust me. The Navy was not happy to be told it had to plug up 8 of each Ohio class boat's launch tubes after they had paid a whole lot of money to have put there in the first place? I am not familiar with how it went with the Air Force. But I'm sure they had to swallow a bunch of down sizing to get to where we are now.
The Navy wants to put its new boat into service in 2034. Is it going to make sense to build 12 of them then? Probably not. And it is always a good idea to ask for more than you want to start with. Then when your "ask" is cut back you end up with what you expected all along. But every cut to the limits on our nuclear arsenal from here on will meet with fierce resistance from our military, the civilians that manage them, and the contractors that work for them. They all want a newer fatter ox not some skinnied down shadow of the old version.
I have just covered just the most important points and I have purposely not gone into any kind of depth. There is also a lot of nuance I have avoided in the interests of brevity. Millennials can be forgiven for having not spent a lot of time learning about and thinking about this sort of thing. By the time they came along things had been pretty much settled. But anyone who aspires to become President of the United States should know all this and hopefully a lot more. They should also have spent some time thinking about it.
Donald Trump is old enough to have been through the '60s when MAD and nuclear retaliation and first strike and second strike and deterrence were all subjects that the public had (or at least should have) spent a considerable mount of time thinking about. I certainly did. And I am confident Hillary Clinton did. But if Mr. Trump has even the least bit of knowledge or insight into these issues it is totally missing from his public comments.
Nuclear Physicists of the late '30s were the first to theorize that "nuclear reactions" could produce fantastic amounts of energy. Why? Because of Einstein's famous "E equals M C squared" equation. Colloquially translated it says you can turn a tiny amount of matter into a whole lot of energy. The reverse is also true. You can change a whole lot of energy into a tiny amount of matter. But no one wants to do that. Anyhow, they noticed that if they smashed atoms sometimes a small amount of mass (the scientific term for matter) went missing. The mass was transformed into energy, a lot of energy. And a lot of energy getting released quickly is an explosion.
This set off the race to create the atomic or "A" bomb. Richard Rhodes has written an excellent book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", that goes into the effort necessary to do this in great detail. (He also wrote a very good follow up, "Dark Sun", about the Hydrogen bomb.) It was a race because the Germans were trying to do the same thing. Details on their efforts can be found in the excellent "Heisenberg's War" by Thomas Powers. Spoiler: the first effort succeeded while the second one failed.
The U.S dropped two A bombs on Japan. Each released roughly 10 kilotons of energy. How much is that? The biggest conventional World War II bomb was the "block buster", so called because it was powerful enough to level a city block. It contained 10,000 pounds (or 5 tons) of high explosive. So the bombs dropped on Japan were roughly 2,000 times as powerful. Each one leveled a city.
The Russians developed a similar bomb only a few years later. An extensive and successful spying effort was only partly responsible. This led to the race to develop the "H" (for Hydrogen) bomb. The original A bombs (there were several designs) were "fission" bombs. You hit the nucleus of a Uranium atom with a neutron and it broke into pieces (a fission process). The pieces weighed slightly less than the original atom so energy was released. Smashing two Hydrogen atoms together (a fusion process) could, in the right circumstances, produce a single Helium atom. And it weighed less than the two Hydrogen atoms that went into its creation. And it turned out that the amount of energy released by this single "fusion" reaction was a lot more than the its equivalent fission reaction. So an H bomb could be a lot more powerful.
H bombs are rated in megatons, millions of tons of energy, not thousands. One A bomb could wipe out a small city like Hiroshima. An H bomb could wipe out the biggest of cities, say New York, and also take out a big chunk of the surrounding countryside. But it turns out that there is a point of diminishing returns. H bombs are so powerful that they literally blow the top off of our roughly 100 mile thick atmosphere. This creates a funnel and as it gets bigger more and more of the bomb's energy gets funneled out into space. Anything bigger than about 10 megatons just throws more energy into space without flattening more of the countryside. And this is just the first example of the topsy turvey logic that routinely surfaces when talking about nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy.
The A bomb that the US dropped on Nagasaki was the last A bomb the US possessed at the time. Fortunately Japan sued for surrender a couple of days later so it didn't matter. And at the time there didn't seem to be any rush to make more. That changed when the Russians exploded their A bomb. All of a sudden it seemed important to have lots of them on hand. And it was important not just to be able to make them but also to be able to deliver them to whatever presumably Russian target we chose to select.
By this time Japan was an ally and Russia was the enemy. When the US dropped its two A bombs on Japan we had been at war with them for several years and had achieved total air superiority. So we could just fly our B-29 bombers wherever we wanted to and drop the bombs wherever we wanted to. But Russia had an extensive and sophisticated military that had a powerful and sophisticated air defense system that would need to be overcome should we wish to "nuke" them.
This caused the US to spend a lot of money and, among other things, develop the B-52 bomber. The first one was built in the late '50s and the last one, the B-52H, was built midway through the '60s. Even so it was not considered a sure thing. An entertaining way to learn something of what would be involved is to take a look at the classic Stanley Kubrick movie "Dr. Strangelove: or how I learned to love the bomb".
There was another thing going on. The SAC (Strategic Air Command) initiative that included the B-52 was a US Air Force show. And that left the other services, especially the US Navy, out. The Navy's response was to develop the guided missile submarine, commonly referred to as a "boomer". This was barely possible to pull off in the '60s but a decade or so later the Navy deployed the Ohio class submarine and its associated Trident missile. This missile carrying submarine became the second leg of what was eventually called "the nuclear triad". (The bombers constituted the first leg.)
The Russians put a small satellite called Sputnik into orbit around the earth in '57. This was scary because it was thought that any missile powerful enough to put a satellite in orbit, even a small one, was powerful enough to hurdle a nuke thousands of miles. It could be made into an ICBM, an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. At the time there was no defense against ICBMs. So a bunch of rockets were built and put into "silos" in the '60s. This was the third leg of the nuclear triad.
It would have made sense for this to be an Army project as this would give each of the three major services its own leg. But in a deft political maneuver the Air Force retained control of the missiles. So the final score was: Air Force - 2; Navy - 1, and Army - 0. This caused the Army out of a sense of desperation to develop a miniaturized A bomb that could be fired from a big gun, an artillery field piece. This was styled a "tactical nuclear weapons system" and was thought by some people to be suitable for use on the battlefield. Does this sound crazy or what?
Well, I did warn you about topsy turvey thinking. And that brings me back to MAD. A justification can be made for the US use of nukes in World War II. I think it is a legitimate justification but I don't want to go into this in the depth necessary to justify my position now. And what became slowly apparent in the decades following World War II was that nuclear weapons were just too horrible in the amount of death and destruction they produced to actually be used. There were serious and prolonged discussions about using them in the Korean War. But the very same President who authorized their use in World War II, Harry Truman, also decided to not use them in Korea. There were some times when things were going really bad for the US in that war but he decided "no" anyhow.
By the time Vietnam came along there was a strong consensus that they should not be used there. And remember this is the same '60s that saw the B-52 program wrapping up, the US ICBM system built and deployed and the development and early deployment of missile carrying submarines. So it was not as if there wasn't a lot of talking and thinking going on about nukes. And there was a hell of a lot of money being spent on them by the military at the time. The military's thinking goes strongly along the lines of "if you have it - use it". But the '60s was also the time that the concept of MAD became completely accepted. So what's the MAD concept and why did it cause the military to eventually be okay with not using nukes?
It is associated with one word: deterrence. "If both sides have them then neither side will use them." But there have been many examples of "them" where both sides had them and used them. Just to cite one example, both sides had and used airplanes in World War I. So what was different about nukes? To explain, I need to discuss "first strike" and "second strike".
Say you have a missile in a silo. What and why is a silo? In this case it is a heavily fortified hole in the ground. The idea is that if the bad guys don't whap the silo directly on the head and don't also hit it really hard the rocket in the silo will still work just fine when the dust settles. So what's the best way to take a silo and the missile it contains out? A nuke, of course. If you can explode a nuke close to the silo it will wreck enough destruction to take the missile out. This is an example of a first strike. If you strike first (and especially if you take them by surprise) and if you can take out enough of their stuff then they don't have enough left to launch an effective second strike (a strike that is launched after your first strike).
At this point in the discussion it appears that the best military strategy is to strike first. And that's a good way to make World War III happen. It didn't take long to figure this out. So what's the counter? Again, there is a single word: survivability. If enough of your stuff survives a first strike to give you the ability to make a powerful second strike then a first strike all of a sudden becomes a bad idea.
Hardened missile silos are a part of this. If you do it right then the bad guys must be able to very accurately target their bombs and the bombs must get through. With bombers it meant putting up a powerful air defense to guard against enemy bombers was a good idea. The US put together NORAD and the DEW line (what they actually are is not that important so I am going to skip that). The Russians did the same thing. Stealth did not exist at that time. So if you say launched a first strike bomber attack you were gambling that you could surprise the other side. If you didn't they could just launch everything too. There would be nothing left on the ground when your bombers got to their bases. You were also gambling that your bombers could somehow make it through in great enough numbers to deliver a knockout punch. You were never 100% sure it would work so a first strike was always a risk.
With missiles it took one missile to take out another missile so the math did not work out. MIRV (I'll get to what it is later) came later. Submarines were basically impossible to find but at the time they were hard to communicate with and, for various reasons, not that accurate. And both sides built and deployed a lot of gear. Even if you got say 80% of it there was so much left. And having three legs of the triad meant if you figured out how to deal with two of the legs the third leg was enough. You had to take out all three legs at the same time or it wouldn't work.
And that brings us to MAD. If both sides are pretty sure that the other side can do serious damage even after a first strike then we have a "mutually assured destruction" scenario. In that scenario it is obviously best all around if no one starts anything. And that's what happened. No nuclear weapon has been used in anger since August of 1945.
But it is important to understand that this situation is fragile. It depends on MAD. So let's look at how to un-mutual things. The first thing is to improve the likelihood of the nuke getting through. You "stealth" the airplane. This is hard to do. But hard really only means expensive. The better you can make your offensive capability the better the other guys have to make their defensive capability. The basic idea of the B-52 was "fly high". But the Russians shot down a U-2 spy plane successfully in 1960 and U-2s fly a lot higher than B-52s. And RADAR has gotten better. And there are other tricks. They too are expensive but there are ways to detect stealth planes.
How about missiles? Well, there's MIRV. MIRV stands for Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles. If you put 10 nukes on one missile then you can take out 10 silos with one missile, if they are accurate. If you have the same number of missiles and silos as the other guy you can use 10% of your missiles to take out all of his missiles. That leaves 90% of your missiles to use to wipe out his cities. MIRV technology was extremely destabilizing. The only argument for it was "if we don't do it they will do it and we will be in trouble". Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments frequently carry the day.
One piece of good news is that battlefield nukes were quietly retired. No reason was ever given but it was good thing. But battlefield nukes are the basis for "suitcase" nukes. The scenario is that a bad guy carries a nuke across the border in a suitcase and gets by customs. He then sets it up in a city, gets out of dodge and a short time later, boom -- no city. Fortunately, so far this scenario has remained an entirely fictional one. And just how big and how heavy a suitcase nuke would have to be is deeply classified so we don't know how practical it actually is. Both the Russians and the US claim they have dismantled all their tactical nukes. So maybe we really don't have anything to worry about here.
Submarines used to not be able to determine their position very accurately. And missiles were even less capable of accurately guiding themselves. But we now have GPS. If a GPS receiver can be fit into an iPhone it can certainly be fit into a submarine and a missile. So the whole accuracy problem has been completely fixed when it comes to submarines and missiles. And that too is a destabilizing development.
And the nuclear artillery shell has been replaced by the cruise missile. Early cruise missiles were explicitly designed to carry nuclear weapons. And cruise missiles are very good at defeating air defense systems. The US did a deal with Russia and there are now no more nuclear cruise missiles being deployed. The development and deployment of nuclear cruise missiles is definitely a destabilizing development because they are so hard to detect or stop.
Both the US and Russia spent a number of decades growing their nuclear arsenals. This was shorthanded to the Arms Race. And fortunately both sides at some point decided "this is stupid". Both sides were spending fantastic amounts of money in the pursuit of security and it wasn't working. Things came to a head under the Reagan Administration. Reagan proposed something called the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, but usually referred to by its unofficial nickname: Star Wars. Every cockamamie idea anyone had come up with for how to build a nuclear shield that would actually defend effectively against a nuclear attack was trotted out.
Experts looked at each and every one. They quickly found holes in all of them. Either the technique would never work or there was a cheap and simple fix that would render the technique ineffective. But in the short run these arguments were ignored. Instead billions of dollars had to be poured into the ideas. And, as had been predicted each and every idea flamed out, often spectacularly. The US spent many billions of dollars. This in turn caused the Russians to spend many billions of dollars. Neither side made any progress. Fortunately, this laid the ground work for some great arms reduction initiatives late in Reagan's second term. It also ended up spelling the death knell for the idea of trying to beat the MAD system. Until Trump came along pretty much everyone decided that the prudent course was to leave everything alone.
That is except for one thing. How about getting rid of nukes? The obvious place to start was to begin reducing the size of the arsenals. The early going was easy. Both sides had way more nukes than they needed so it was easy to get an agreement to scale things back. And that agreement worked well so we have since seen a number of agreements for scaling things back even more. Continue the process long enough and you get to zero. And a large number of people think zero is a good number. Their argument is simple. If there are no nukes then there are no nukes and it is impossible for something horrible to go wrong. And as far as it goes it's a good argument.
But if we have no nukes what happens of someone gets a few nukes? Then you have real problems. There are a number of current nuclear powers. It is not hard for them to save away the know how. And that means that they could go from no nukes to some nukes pretty quickly. And numbered among these are Pakistan and North Korea. Neither of these countries are known for their stability and their commitment to rationality. A world where only North Korea has nukes is a truly scary place.
But getting the whole "nuclear deterrent" thing to work only depends on having a few nukes, say a couple of hundred. That is more than enough. So how about setting a target of say 200-400? That makes perfect sense to me. But there are practical problems.
Remember the whole "each service needs its toy" thing I laid out above. It's still true. A lot of military types, both the uniform types and the bureaucratic types, measure their worth by the size of their budget. A lot of waste and fraud in the military sector can be traced to efforts to get one budget or another increased to the same size as the ego of the man (or rarely woman) in charge. And lots of these people are very skilled political infighters.
Let's look at the Navy because I have the numbers handy for them. Their current boomer is the Ohio class submarine. Originally it carried 24 trident missiles in 24 launch tubes. And each of them was MIRVed so that it had 10 warheads. (BTW, the fact that the warhead count is 10 is widely known but top secret anyhow.) So each Ohio class submarine had 240 nukes onboard. And, if we assume a fleet of 10, that's a total of 2,400 nukes in the fleet. That's a lot of nukes and it represents only one of three legs of the US nuclear triad.
Now let's look at the limits set by the most recent nuclear treaty, the "New START" (START - STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty - always assume an acronym unless proven otherwise) treaty. The US (Russia must adhere to the same limits) is allowed a total of 700 deployed ICBMs (missiles in silos), SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles - Tridents), and heavy bombers (B-52s or the newer B-1s and B-2s). These can include a total of 1,550 warheads. The US is also allowed a total of 800 "deployed and non-deployed" launchers. If we have all 700 allowed deployed launchers then an additional 100 non-deployed, i.e. down for maintenance and upgrades, etc., launchers would be allowed. If we have fewer deployed launchers we can have more non-deployed launchers.
But according to the math above Ohio class submarines account for 240 of 700 (34%) allowed launchers and 2,400 of 1,550 (160%) warheads. Oops! It turns out that the US has down-rated the submarines from 24 to 16 launch tubes. So we have 160 missiles and 1,600 warheads. (I presume that the Tridents have been down rated from 10 warheads to some lesser number. But its all classified so I don't know what the number is.)
And in this topsey turvery world the US and Russia agree to do what would otherwise be really stupid things. They routinely do certain things in certain ways so that the other side can verify what they are doing by using spy satellites. That's how the Russians know that 8 launch tubes are disabled. I have no idea how they know how much the MIRV count has been reduced on the missiles. In a normal world each country would go to great lengths to hide what they were up to.
But wait. There's more. The Ohio class submarines have been around a while. Well, not as long as the B-52's but still. Anyhow, that means that the Navy has plans for a replacement. God knows what each new submarine will cost. The Navy plan is for 12 boats, each of which will have 16 launch tubes. That's 192 missiles or 27% of the total allowed number. The MIRV factor is classified so I don't know what the total warhead count will be for whatever missile is eventually used. This all fits (just barely) under the current limits. (Remember the Air Force is fighting for each and every bomber and missile it can and the Army is still feeling seriously left out.)
But how many boats and how many missiles per boat we need and what MIRV factor should we expect if everything has to fit under a 400 warhead cap. Trust me. The Navy was not happy to be told it had to plug up 8 of each Ohio class boat's launch tubes after they had paid a whole lot of money to have put there in the first place? I am not familiar with how it went with the Air Force. But I'm sure they had to swallow a bunch of down sizing to get to where we are now.
The Navy wants to put its new boat into service in 2034. Is it going to make sense to build 12 of them then? Probably not. And it is always a good idea to ask for more than you want to start with. Then when your "ask" is cut back you end up with what you expected all along. But every cut to the limits on our nuclear arsenal from here on will meet with fierce resistance from our military, the civilians that manage them, and the contractors that work for them. They all want a newer fatter ox not some skinnied down shadow of the old version.
I have just covered just the most important points and I have purposely not gone into any kind of depth. There is also a lot of nuance I have avoided in the interests of brevity. Millennials can be forgiven for having not spent a lot of time learning about and thinking about this sort of thing. By the time they came along things had been pretty much settled. But anyone who aspires to become President of the United States should know all this and hopefully a lot more. They should also have spent some time thinking about it.
Donald Trump is old enough to have been through the '60s when MAD and nuclear retaliation and first strike and second strike and deterrence were all subjects that the public had (or at least should have) spent a considerable mount of time thinking about. I certainly did. And I am confident Hillary Clinton did. But if Mr. Trump has even the least bit of knowledge or insight into these issues it is totally missing from his public comments.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Middle East Update
The last review of the situation I did was in my 2014 "ISIS - Do Something Stupid Now" post (see http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2014/09/isis-do-something-stupid-now.html). At that point we had little experience with ISIS (or ISIL or daesh). But almost two years have passed and ISIS is still with us. So what's changed and what has stayed the same?
The propensity for doing something stupid NOW, as in before thinking the ramifications through, has continued. And the Middle East continues to churn. I write this a few days after a failed Coup attempt in Turkey. Back then I certainly did not predict a Turkish Coup nor that it would fail. But a much overlooked attribute of the Middle East is the regularity with which unexpected things continue to happen.
When I wrote the previous post al Maliki was in charge of Iraq. Shortly afterward he was forced out and replaced by al Abadi. He seems to be doing a much better job of governing the country as opposed to just looking out for the interests of the Shiites. As a result of this more enlightened approach Iraqi forces have had considerable success in pushing ISIS out of large chunks of Anbar province. As is often the case, things have been going slowly, much more slowly than one would hope. I talked about things changing in "a year or so". Some things have changed but most things have stayed the same.
And unlike the change for the better that has happened in Iraq things have gotten worse in Turkey. (For the moment I am confining myself to the fight against ISIS.) An informal truce between the government and the Kurds lasted for a good long while. This truce was upheld by the Kurds. They wanted to focus on supporting the Kurdish sections of Iraq and Syria. But the Erdogan government of Turkey abruptly broke the truce. This has resulted in a number of tit-for-tat actions on both sides. The Turks have bombed and shelled Kurdish territory in Turkey. In retaliation the Kurds have staged a number of terrorist attacks on Turkish soil. The back and forth has remained at a relatively low level so far but who knows what the future will bring.
And it has become apparent that Turkey was using a policy of "benign neglect" when it came to ISIS. But there have recently been a number of ISIS terrorist attacks inside Turkey. The most recent one occurred in the main airport in Istanbul. It looks like the Turkish government is moving toward a more anti-ISIS stance. But Erdogan is using the failed Coup as an excuse to tighten his control of the country. Tens of thousands of people have been rounded up. So it is likely that he will step up his harassment of the Kurds but it is also likely he will step up his harassment of ISIS. What's the net? Who knows.
So the Turkish situation is complex and fraught with opportunities for the US to put a foot wrong. As is the situation with the Iraqis and, therefore, with the Kurds. We would like to support the Kurds much more actively as they have been the most effective in opposing ISIS. But this is likely to antagonize Turkey, Iraq, or both. And that's just three countries. Let's now widen our view.
I'll start with Iran because they are intimately connected with Iraq and ISIS. We have done a nuclear deal with Iran. This takes Iranian nukes off the table. This should universally be seen as a good thing. But the Republican position of "we're against anything Obama is for" means that this deal must be bad mouthed. The Obama Administration wants to improve relations with Iran and to nudge them away from bad behavior (supporting terrorists) and toward good behavior.
Iran has been helpful in our efforts to defeat ISIS. But they continue to generally support various terrorist factions in the Middle East. The Iranian street is strongly in favor of the nuclear deal and would like to go back to having normal relations with the rest of the world. The street believes that this would substantially improver the Iranian economy. An improved economy, it is thought, would improve the position of moderates in Iran. This will hopefully create a moderating force within Iran. It is way too soon to be able to predict success for this admittedly optimistic scenario.
Let's move on to Syria. The Civil War grinds on. It has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe through Turkey. Just when Assad looked to be on the ropes the Russians swooped in and saved him. The result is that there is plenty of outside support available to fund the carnage and destruction the various sides want to inflict on each other. No side is strong enough to take the other sides out nor weak enough to be eliminated by the others. So there continues to be no end in sight.
The rest of the Middle East seems frozen in amber. The Saudis continue to maintain their support of the Wahhabi faction of Islam. The Wahhabis continue to provide religious cover (and lots of under the table money) to extremists. Egypt seems to have settled into the 2.0 version of a military dictatorship. Any US efforts to assist Libya in its efforts to get back on track have been sabotaged by Republican "get Hillary" actions so it continues to churn. The Israelis continue to build settlements and generally drift toward a "one state" solution. But the Palestinian population bomb guarantees this strategy will eventually fail. But in the mean time any possibility of a "two state" solution recedes into the distance.
A more distant component of the general churn is the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation. The Afghan government has turned over and the new crew seem to be doing a better job of governance. So there seems to be glacially slow progress in Afghanistan. I really don't know what is going on with Pakistan. The ISI secret service seems to be still in bed with the Taliban. But who controls what, and what the trends are is a total mystery to me. So here too things are more "same old - same old" than anything else.
There is a constant to all this. And that is there are a lot of moving pieces that all interact. Pushing one piece hard (i.e. "bombing [insert the location of your choice here] until the sand glows") is going to be good for defense contractors and bad for pretty much everyone else. And let me quote from my previous post here: "There is a near unanimous belief in the area [throughout the Arab world] that we [the US] have interfered too much in the area." Any kind of substantial unilateral US military action would generate large amounts of blow back.
We need to stick with a strategy of working through the locals. This is frustrating in the extreme. Each and every one of our local allies has important interests that conflict with the actions we would like to see taken. As a single example, Turkey has a large economic base, a large population, and a large well trained and equipped military. They could swoop in and wipe ISIS out without raising a sweat. But for a long list of reasons Turkey is not going to do that. They even think it is a good idea to put road blocks in our way. I could go to the next and the next and the next of our allies. The details vary but what is common is that they find reasons to not do what we would prefer.
But wait! It's worse. Say somebody, Turkey for instance, went ahead and did what we wanted. That would likely be viewed badly by others of our allies and that might result in them taking actions we really don't want them to take. So is the situation hopeless? No! There is actually a precedent for this kind of situation. It is of all things the Cold War.
The Cold War was the same sort of complicated mess. And there a serious misstep could have resulted in Global Nuclear War. So what did we do? We were slow, methodical, and persistent. And it eventually worked. But it did take fifty years. I think the Middle East situation can be worked out in less than fifty years. But it will take much longer than anyone wants it to. Remember that when it started, no one thought the Cold War would last as long as it did.
What got the USSR in the end was economics. They just couldn't get their economy to work very well. Eventually the western economy grew so far past the communist one that their side collapsed from the inside. The common problem in the Middle East is bad government. This results in stagnant economies. Oil has propped these economies up for a long time. These governments have succeeded in buying their populations off. But that is getting harder and harder to do. Even within just the Oil industry technology marches on. Things like Fracking require the kind of nimble response repressive regimes are bad at.
Technology also marches on and opens the populations of these countries up to what is going on in the rest of the world. This opening up was what kicked off the Arab Spring. At base it was a movement for better, more open government. That genie has temporarily been forced back into the bottle. The authoritarian regimes prevailed. But will they be able to next time? We want to be seen as the good guys the next time the lid comes off. The way to do this is to act like good guys. And that means, in the most simplistic terms, that we want the State Department not the Defense Department to be the lead agency.
The propensity for doing something stupid NOW, as in before thinking the ramifications through, has continued. And the Middle East continues to churn. I write this a few days after a failed Coup attempt in Turkey. Back then I certainly did not predict a Turkish Coup nor that it would fail. But a much overlooked attribute of the Middle East is the regularity with which unexpected things continue to happen.
When I wrote the previous post al Maliki was in charge of Iraq. Shortly afterward he was forced out and replaced by al Abadi. He seems to be doing a much better job of governing the country as opposed to just looking out for the interests of the Shiites. As a result of this more enlightened approach Iraqi forces have had considerable success in pushing ISIS out of large chunks of Anbar province. As is often the case, things have been going slowly, much more slowly than one would hope. I talked about things changing in "a year or so". Some things have changed but most things have stayed the same.
And unlike the change for the better that has happened in Iraq things have gotten worse in Turkey. (For the moment I am confining myself to the fight against ISIS.) An informal truce between the government and the Kurds lasted for a good long while. This truce was upheld by the Kurds. They wanted to focus on supporting the Kurdish sections of Iraq and Syria. But the Erdogan government of Turkey abruptly broke the truce. This has resulted in a number of tit-for-tat actions on both sides. The Turks have bombed and shelled Kurdish territory in Turkey. In retaliation the Kurds have staged a number of terrorist attacks on Turkish soil. The back and forth has remained at a relatively low level so far but who knows what the future will bring.
And it has become apparent that Turkey was using a policy of "benign neglect" when it came to ISIS. But there have recently been a number of ISIS terrorist attacks inside Turkey. The most recent one occurred in the main airport in Istanbul. It looks like the Turkish government is moving toward a more anti-ISIS stance. But Erdogan is using the failed Coup as an excuse to tighten his control of the country. Tens of thousands of people have been rounded up. So it is likely that he will step up his harassment of the Kurds but it is also likely he will step up his harassment of ISIS. What's the net? Who knows.
So the Turkish situation is complex and fraught with opportunities for the US to put a foot wrong. As is the situation with the Iraqis and, therefore, with the Kurds. We would like to support the Kurds much more actively as they have been the most effective in opposing ISIS. But this is likely to antagonize Turkey, Iraq, or both. And that's just three countries. Let's now widen our view.
I'll start with Iran because they are intimately connected with Iraq and ISIS. We have done a nuclear deal with Iran. This takes Iranian nukes off the table. This should universally be seen as a good thing. But the Republican position of "we're against anything Obama is for" means that this deal must be bad mouthed. The Obama Administration wants to improve relations with Iran and to nudge them away from bad behavior (supporting terrorists) and toward good behavior.
Iran has been helpful in our efforts to defeat ISIS. But they continue to generally support various terrorist factions in the Middle East. The Iranian street is strongly in favor of the nuclear deal and would like to go back to having normal relations with the rest of the world. The street believes that this would substantially improver the Iranian economy. An improved economy, it is thought, would improve the position of moderates in Iran. This will hopefully create a moderating force within Iran. It is way too soon to be able to predict success for this admittedly optimistic scenario.
Let's move on to Syria. The Civil War grinds on. It has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe through Turkey. Just when Assad looked to be on the ropes the Russians swooped in and saved him. The result is that there is plenty of outside support available to fund the carnage and destruction the various sides want to inflict on each other. No side is strong enough to take the other sides out nor weak enough to be eliminated by the others. So there continues to be no end in sight.
The rest of the Middle East seems frozen in amber. The Saudis continue to maintain their support of the Wahhabi faction of Islam. The Wahhabis continue to provide religious cover (and lots of under the table money) to extremists. Egypt seems to have settled into the 2.0 version of a military dictatorship. Any US efforts to assist Libya in its efforts to get back on track have been sabotaged by Republican "get Hillary" actions so it continues to churn. The Israelis continue to build settlements and generally drift toward a "one state" solution. But the Palestinian population bomb guarantees this strategy will eventually fail. But in the mean time any possibility of a "two state" solution recedes into the distance.
A more distant component of the general churn is the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation. The Afghan government has turned over and the new crew seem to be doing a better job of governance. So there seems to be glacially slow progress in Afghanistan. I really don't know what is going on with Pakistan. The ISI secret service seems to be still in bed with the Taliban. But who controls what, and what the trends are is a total mystery to me. So here too things are more "same old - same old" than anything else.
There is a constant to all this. And that is there are a lot of moving pieces that all interact. Pushing one piece hard (i.e. "bombing [insert the location of your choice here] until the sand glows") is going to be good for defense contractors and bad for pretty much everyone else. And let me quote from my previous post here: "There is a near unanimous belief in the area [throughout the Arab world] that we [the US] have interfered too much in the area." Any kind of substantial unilateral US military action would generate large amounts of blow back.
We need to stick with a strategy of working through the locals. This is frustrating in the extreme. Each and every one of our local allies has important interests that conflict with the actions we would like to see taken. As a single example, Turkey has a large economic base, a large population, and a large well trained and equipped military. They could swoop in and wipe ISIS out without raising a sweat. But for a long list of reasons Turkey is not going to do that. They even think it is a good idea to put road blocks in our way. I could go to the next and the next and the next of our allies. The details vary but what is common is that they find reasons to not do what we would prefer.
But wait! It's worse. Say somebody, Turkey for instance, went ahead and did what we wanted. That would likely be viewed badly by others of our allies and that might result in them taking actions we really don't want them to take. So is the situation hopeless? No! There is actually a precedent for this kind of situation. It is of all things the Cold War.
The Cold War was the same sort of complicated mess. And there a serious misstep could have resulted in Global Nuclear War. So what did we do? We were slow, methodical, and persistent. And it eventually worked. But it did take fifty years. I think the Middle East situation can be worked out in less than fifty years. But it will take much longer than anyone wants it to. Remember that when it started, no one thought the Cold War would last as long as it did.
What got the USSR in the end was economics. They just couldn't get their economy to work very well. Eventually the western economy grew so far past the communist one that their side collapsed from the inside. The common problem in the Middle East is bad government. This results in stagnant economies. Oil has propped these economies up for a long time. These governments have succeeded in buying their populations off. But that is getting harder and harder to do. Even within just the Oil industry technology marches on. Things like Fracking require the kind of nimble response repressive regimes are bad at.
Technology also marches on and opens the populations of these countries up to what is going on in the rest of the world. This opening up was what kicked off the Arab Spring. At base it was a movement for better, more open government. That genie has temporarily been forced back into the bottle. The authoritarian regimes prevailed. But will they be able to next time? We want to be seen as the good guys the next time the lid comes off. The way to do this is to act like good guys. And that means, in the most simplistic terms, that we want the State Department not the Defense Department to be the lead agency.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Guns
Quoting from my last post: '. . . the perspective I would bring is similar to one that many others are presenting. I try to avoid chiming in with a "me too" in these cases'. But in this case I can't help myself. Others have addressed this subject often and well. And they have said pretty much what I am about to say. But I find I can not remain silent. So . . .
Part 1
We didn't do anything when any number of black men and women were shot and killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of little white kids were shot and killed (Newtown, Connecticut).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of moviegoers were shot and killed (Aurora, Colorado).
We didn't do anything when a congresswoman (Gabby Giffords of Arizona) was shot and several of her constituents were killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of college kids were killed (San Bernardino, California).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of churchgoers were killed (Charleston, South Carolina).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of soldiers were killed (Fort Hood, Texas).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of gay night clubbers were killed (Orlando, Florida).
Are we now going to do something after five white cops were shot and killed (Dallas, Texas)?
Part 2
So how's that NRA "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" thing working out?
Since the NRA started its "arm everybody all the time" campaign a couple of decades ago millions of people have bought tens of millions of guns.
Large numbers of these people are now packing in public. Many are taking advantage of now widespread "open carry" laws to carry a gun out where everyone can see it. Others are taking advantage of less widespread but still common "concealed carry" laws to carry guns but not in an obvious way.
Laws have also been changed so that these guns can be legally carried in places like schools, parks, bars, and other places where concentrations of people can be found.
By now we should have seen many examples of good guys stopping bad guys. And we do see the odd example of a home owner shooting a burglar. But that's pretty much it. And homeowners have been shooting burglars since time immemorial.
Instead what we see is good guys with guns on the scene but not using the gun.
Consider:
In the Gabby Giffords case there was a good guy with a gun on site. But he joined other good guys in tackling the bad guy. He never even drew his gun.
In the San Bernardino case there were several good guys with guns on campus but none of them got anywhere near the shooter. They were specifically directed by the cops to stay out of the way.
In the two "cops shooting black guys" cases that immediately preceded the Dallas case both of the black guys were shot because the cop either knew or suspected that each guy had a gun. Certainly from the point of view of each black guy the NRA's logic would justify them shooting the cop. What would the NRA response be to a black civilian killing a cop apparently for no reason? Does the NRA even believe that it is possible for a black guy to be a good guy or a cop to be a bad guy?
In the Dallas case there was an innocent black guy legally carrying an assault rifle on site. He was immediately tagged as a suspect by the cops and a careful waltz was executed so that he could save his life by surrendering his gun to the Dallas cops. And this waltz took place as the actual mass shooting was continuing to unfold. Needless to say he was unable to do his "good guy with a gun" thing
It being Texas there undoubtedly were several other "good guys with guns" on site. But again it was not "good guys with guns" but cops that ultimately dealt with the bad guy. And the "good guys with guns" actually made it much harder for the cops to do their jobs. They diverted time, effort, and attention away from the their primary task of understanding the situation and dealing with the actual bad guy. "Good guys with guns" were definitely a hindrance rather than a help in this particular case.
It turns out, however, that there are two groups that have greatly benefitted from the NRA's oft repeated slogan. That would be gang bangers and drunks.
The movie "West Side Story" came out in 1961. It is a nice entertainment based on the 1957 Broadway show of the same name. But the contribution it makes to this discussion is that it accurately depicts the kind of armament typically deployed by gangs of the era. And, while the gang members in the movie were charming, handsome, and good dancers, the real life gang members the characters in the movie (and earlier show) were loosely based on were every bit as viscous as their modern day counterparts. But back then the weapon of choice of the typical gang member was a switchblade knife. Very few innocent civilians were killed inadvertently as a result of the many fights between gangs that happened during this period.
But modern gang members have massively increased the lethality of the weapons they now use. Their weapons of choice are now automatic pistols and assault rifles. And they routinely use them in "drive by" shootings instead of the back alley "rumble" of yore. They are aiming at people from other gangs or people who might be members of other gangs or people who are mistaken for members of other gangs. But their aim is often poor so they routinely kill or wound innocent bystanders who get caught in the line of fire. This is now such a routine occurrence that it never makes the national news and is not even guaranteed to make the local news.
Another routine occurrence is gunfire erupting as bars empty out at closing time. Somebody gets mad at somebody else. Someone, perhaps several someone's, pulls a gun and pops off a shot or two. Some people are so intent on being seen as suitably lethal that they even go to their cars, get a gun, and come back. These drunks have just as much sound judgement as you would expect. And they are just about as good at hitting what they aim at as you would expect. So a lot of innocents end up catching a bullet. And in some cases the innocent is actually the person the shooter was aiming at. By the time these clowns sober up enough to restore their judgment it is too late. The casualties are already in the emergency room or the morgue.
Then there is the case of someone packing without benefit of a proper holster. So the gun gets dislodged and somehow goes off. If a celebrity is involved this might make the national news but these events are now so routine that national coverage is rare and local coverage is usually but not always guaranteed. Back in the day a bar fight resulted in some skinned knuckles, the odd other minor damage, and a trip downtown to the drunk tank. And back in the day there were no fatalities and especially no innocent fatalities.
And back in the day you could go to a church or a school or a shopping mall and not have to worry about the personal safety of yourself or your loved ones. But these places are no longer safe. And what has changed is that the world is now much less like the bad old days (in the NRA's view) and much more like the good new days (again in the NRA's view).
Part 3
It is long past time to admit that the NRA "solution" is not the solution. There was saying when I was young: "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem". It is long past time to admit that the NRA is part of the problem. And, most importantly, the NRA "arm everybody all the time" plan is making things worse. And if something is making things worse it is time to stop doing it and start doing the opposite.
The one thing that now should be blindingly obvious is that IT IS TIME TO TAKE A LOT OF GUNS AWAY FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.
There is another saw: "If you find yourself in a hole then stop digging". That means IT IS TIME TO MAKE IT A LOT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET GUNS.
I note that Australia did this. After a massacre that would now be considered routine in the US they were so horrified that they changed their laws. They took a lot of guns out of circulation and they made it much harder for people to get guns. It worked. Their already low rate of gun deaths went even lower. And they have not had a single mass shooting in the many years since they changed the law.
It is also important to note that we have been playing a game of "whack a more" with gun laws for decades. A proposal is made to tighten the laws in one way or another. We are told that this law has a fata flaw and so should not be implemented. So another law is proposed that does not have this flaw. That too is fatally flawed, we are told. A mole (proposal for a law) pops up from one hole and the NRA whacks it down. Then a mole pops up in another hole and the NRA whacks it down. The result is that nothing is done about the mole problem.
Any law (the NRA strategy tells us) that is not perfect and complete should be opposed. And the result is that nothing gets passed at the Federal level. There has been some movement at the state level. But it mostly consists of NRA sponsored legislation loosening gun regulations getting passed. States that have done this have generally seen their gun fatalities go up. In very rare instances states have passed restrictive laws over the objections of the NRA. And the results have generally been modest but they have also been that gun deaths go down. Overall the result has been to make us less safe as more states have loosened laws than have tightened them.
The fact is that we have worked hard to get where we are (an obscene number of gun fatalities every year) and no single change will fix it. But there is a well tested method of getting to where we need to be. It is most closely associated with W. Edwards Deming. Deming championed a process of making many small improvements instead of trying to fix everything at once. You try something then you check to see if it works. If it doesn't you stop doing it. But if it does result in improvement then you keep it and look around for something else that has a good chance of improving things.
We have done this to some extent at the state level. We have tried various NRA approved approaches. For the most part they have made thing worse. We have tried things that the NRA opposes. For the most part they have made things better (fewer gun fatalities and, most importantly, fewer innocent gun fatalities). Have any of these completely fixed the problem? No! But Deming argues that we should not expect any one thing to fix everything. Instead you should expect to need to implement a number, perhaps a large number, of changes.
And there is another thing Deming was big on and that is measurement. You should study the results of a change to see if and how it improves things. The NRA is adamantly opposed to any research on guns or gun violence. Deming would say that as a result of this we should not be surprised that things are getting worse rather than better.
There are a long list of things we should do. If you want a "one shot" fix then adopt the Australian laws in their entirety. I would expect that this would be an improvement over the current situation but that it would also cause problems. The US is not Australia and failing to carefully study the situation (how the US is similar to Australia but also how it is different) and then to tailoring your approach to what you learn is not going to work as well as what Deming recommends.
So we should plan on making a lot of changes and we should expect that no single change will completely fix the problem. The first thing we should do is get rid of all the laws that block the ability of governments to collect information and for scientists to study it. And part of that study should be to look at what states have done and are doing. We are told that states are "the laboratories of democracy". We should carefully study what these lab results tell us and proceed from there.
Part 1
We didn't do anything when any number of black men and women were shot and killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of little white kids were shot and killed (Newtown, Connecticut).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of moviegoers were shot and killed (Aurora, Colorado).
We didn't do anything when a congresswoman (Gabby Giffords of Arizona) was shot and several of her constituents were killed.
We didn't do anything when a bunch of college kids were killed (San Bernardino, California).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of churchgoers were killed (Charleston, South Carolina).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of soldiers were killed (Fort Hood, Texas).
We didn't do anything when a bunch of gay night clubbers were killed (Orlando, Florida).
Are we now going to do something after five white cops were shot and killed (Dallas, Texas)?
Part 2
So how's that NRA "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" thing working out?
Since the NRA started its "arm everybody all the time" campaign a couple of decades ago millions of people have bought tens of millions of guns.
Large numbers of these people are now packing in public. Many are taking advantage of now widespread "open carry" laws to carry a gun out where everyone can see it. Others are taking advantage of less widespread but still common "concealed carry" laws to carry guns but not in an obvious way.
Laws have also been changed so that these guns can be legally carried in places like schools, parks, bars, and other places where concentrations of people can be found.
By now we should have seen many examples of good guys stopping bad guys. And we do see the odd example of a home owner shooting a burglar. But that's pretty much it. And homeowners have been shooting burglars since time immemorial.
Instead what we see is good guys with guns on the scene but not using the gun.
Consider:
In the Gabby Giffords case there was a good guy with a gun on site. But he joined other good guys in tackling the bad guy. He never even drew his gun.
In the San Bernardino case there were several good guys with guns on campus but none of them got anywhere near the shooter. They were specifically directed by the cops to stay out of the way.
In the two "cops shooting black guys" cases that immediately preceded the Dallas case both of the black guys were shot because the cop either knew or suspected that each guy had a gun. Certainly from the point of view of each black guy the NRA's logic would justify them shooting the cop. What would the NRA response be to a black civilian killing a cop apparently for no reason? Does the NRA even believe that it is possible for a black guy to be a good guy or a cop to be a bad guy?
In the Dallas case there was an innocent black guy legally carrying an assault rifle on site. He was immediately tagged as a suspect by the cops and a careful waltz was executed so that he could save his life by surrendering his gun to the Dallas cops. And this waltz took place as the actual mass shooting was continuing to unfold. Needless to say he was unable to do his "good guy with a gun" thing
It being Texas there undoubtedly were several other "good guys with guns" on site. But again it was not "good guys with guns" but cops that ultimately dealt with the bad guy. And the "good guys with guns" actually made it much harder for the cops to do their jobs. They diverted time, effort, and attention away from the their primary task of understanding the situation and dealing with the actual bad guy. "Good guys with guns" were definitely a hindrance rather than a help in this particular case.
It turns out, however, that there are two groups that have greatly benefitted from the NRA's oft repeated slogan. That would be gang bangers and drunks.
The movie "West Side Story" came out in 1961. It is a nice entertainment based on the 1957 Broadway show of the same name. But the contribution it makes to this discussion is that it accurately depicts the kind of armament typically deployed by gangs of the era. And, while the gang members in the movie were charming, handsome, and good dancers, the real life gang members the characters in the movie (and earlier show) were loosely based on were every bit as viscous as their modern day counterparts. But back then the weapon of choice of the typical gang member was a switchblade knife. Very few innocent civilians were killed inadvertently as a result of the many fights between gangs that happened during this period.
But modern gang members have massively increased the lethality of the weapons they now use. Their weapons of choice are now automatic pistols and assault rifles. And they routinely use them in "drive by" shootings instead of the back alley "rumble" of yore. They are aiming at people from other gangs or people who might be members of other gangs or people who are mistaken for members of other gangs. But their aim is often poor so they routinely kill or wound innocent bystanders who get caught in the line of fire. This is now such a routine occurrence that it never makes the national news and is not even guaranteed to make the local news.
Another routine occurrence is gunfire erupting as bars empty out at closing time. Somebody gets mad at somebody else. Someone, perhaps several someone's, pulls a gun and pops off a shot or two. Some people are so intent on being seen as suitably lethal that they even go to their cars, get a gun, and come back. These drunks have just as much sound judgement as you would expect. And they are just about as good at hitting what they aim at as you would expect. So a lot of innocents end up catching a bullet. And in some cases the innocent is actually the person the shooter was aiming at. By the time these clowns sober up enough to restore their judgment it is too late. The casualties are already in the emergency room or the morgue.
Then there is the case of someone packing without benefit of a proper holster. So the gun gets dislodged and somehow goes off. If a celebrity is involved this might make the national news but these events are now so routine that national coverage is rare and local coverage is usually but not always guaranteed. Back in the day a bar fight resulted in some skinned knuckles, the odd other minor damage, and a trip downtown to the drunk tank. And back in the day there were no fatalities and especially no innocent fatalities.
And back in the day you could go to a church or a school or a shopping mall and not have to worry about the personal safety of yourself or your loved ones. But these places are no longer safe. And what has changed is that the world is now much less like the bad old days (in the NRA's view) and much more like the good new days (again in the NRA's view).
Part 3
It is long past time to admit that the NRA "solution" is not the solution. There was saying when I was young: "If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem". It is long past time to admit that the NRA is part of the problem. And, most importantly, the NRA "arm everybody all the time" plan is making things worse. And if something is making things worse it is time to stop doing it and start doing the opposite.
The one thing that now should be blindingly obvious is that IT IS TIME TO TAKE A LOT OF GUNS AWAY FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.
There is another saw: "If you find yourself in a hole then stop digging". That means IT IS TIME TO MAKE IT A LOT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET GUNS.
I note that Australia did this. After a massacre that would now be considered routine in the US they were so horrified that they changed their laws. They took a lot of guns out of circulation and they made it much harder for people to get guns. It worked. Their already low rate of gun deaths went even lower. And they have not had a single mass shooting in the many years since they changed the law.
It is also important to note that we have been playing a game of "whack a more" with gun laws for decades. A proposal is made to tighten the laws in one way or another. We are told that this law has a fata flaw and so should not be implemented. So another law is proposed that does not have this flaw. That too is fatally flawed, we are told. A mole (proposal for a law) pops up from one hole and the NRA whacks it down. Then a mole pops up in another hole and the NRA whacks it down. The result is that nothing is done about the mole problem.
Any law (the NRA strategy tells us) that is not perfect and complete should be opposed. And the result is that nothing gets passed at the Federal level. There has been some movement at the state level. But it mostly consists of NRA sponsored legislation loosening gun regulations getting passed. States that have done this have generally seen their gun fatalities go up. In very rare instances states have passed restrictive laws over the objections of the NRA. And the results have generally been modest but they have also been that gun deaths go down. Overall the result has been to make us less safe as more states have loosened laws than have tightened them.
The fact is that we have worked hard to get where we are (an obscene number of gun fatalities every year) and no single change will fix it. But there is a well tested method of getting to where we need to be. It is most closely associated with W. Edwards Deming. Deming championed a process of making many small improvements instead of trying to fix everything at once. You try something then you check to see if it works. If it doesn't you stop doing it. But if it does result in improvement then you keep it and look around for something else that has a good chance of improving things.
We have done this to some extent at the state level. We have tried various NRA approved approaches. For the most part they have made thing worse. We have tried things that the NRA opposes. For the most part they have made things better (fewer gun fatalities and, most importantly, fewer innocent gun fatalities). Have any of these completely fixed the problem? No! But Deming argues that we should not expect any one thing to fix everything. Instead you should expect to need to implement a number, perhaps a large number, of changes.
And there is another thing Deming was big on and that is measurement. You should study the results of a change to see if and how it improves things. The NRA is adamantly opposed to any research on guns or gun violence. Deming would say that as a result of this we should not be surprised that things are getting worse rather than better.
There are a long list of things we should do. If you want a "one shot" fix then adopt the Australian laws in their entirety. I would expect that this would be an improvement over the current situation but that it would also cause problems. The US is not Australia and failing to carefully study the situation (how the US is similar to Australia but also how it is different) and then to tailoring your approach to what you learn is not going to work as well as what Deming recommends.
So we should plan on making a lot of changes and we should expect that no single change will completely fix the problem. The first thing we should do is get rid of all the laws that block the ability of governments to collect information and for scientists to study it. And part of that study should be to look at what states have done and are doing. We are told that states are "the laboratories of democracy". We should carefully study what these lab results tell us and proceed from there.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
World Government
There many topics I could write a post about. In a lot of cases I don't know enough about the subject to say anything useful. In other cases the perspective I would bring is similar to one that many others are already presenting. I try to avoid chiming in with a "me too" in these cases. This leaves situations where I think I can come at an issue from a perspective that is rare completely missing elsewhere. This constitutes the bulk of my posts. Then there is the case where literally no one is talking about something but where I think they should be. That's the case with the subject of this post.
The right spends a great deal of time decrying political correctness. Implicit in their argument is that this is something that only the left does and also that it is always a bad thing. But the right has its own forms of political correctness that it attempts to rigidly enforce on all of us. They have actually had considerable success at this. A classic example of this is the word Socialism.
For many years the right succeeded in branding this concept as so bad on its face that it was not to be discussed in public by civilized people. They were so successful that the idea of Socialism has been completely absent from the public discourse for at least a decade. Anyone, they claimed, who characterized Socialism as anything but a swear word was obviously a bad person. Therefore anything that person might have to say should be (and for a long time was) completely ignored. Bernie Sanders has done us all a good turn by resurrecting the word Socialism. He has reintroducing it as something that can be spoken of in polite company. He has even gone so far as to convince many people that many Socialist ideas are actually good ideas.
But so far no one has performed the same service with respect to another idea. Conservatives have successfully shut down the possibility of any kind of serious discussion of the idea that forming a single world government might be a good idea. This idea has been out of fashion for quite some time. And the recent BREXIT vote, the vote in the United Kingdom to exit the European Union, is seen by many as proof that the world should move away from rather than toward such a thing.
I read a lot of Science Fiction. A lot of it takes it as a given that a world government would eventually evolve on Earth. This idea persists in Science Fiction to this day. But the conservative political correctness drive on this subject has been so successful that discussion of it is now found almost nowhere else. I think that is a sad state of affairs. So I am going to discuss it here. Some kind of stab at a world government has popped up in various places in history. That's where I am going to start.
For a long time and in most parts of the world what we had was the "Alexander the Great" model. From time to time some single specific individual would conquer an unusually large area. But the empire thus created tended to fall apart soon after the death of the "great leader". Genghis Kahn is another example of this sort of thing. But to be honest, regardless of how great the size of territory conquered appeared to people of the time, it still amounted to only a small portion of the then known world and an even smaller portion of the actual world.
And there is a good and sound reason for this. Transportation systems, whether we are talking about people or information, were not able to function quickly enough or effectively enough to permit a single unified government to control large areas. You can't impose your will if you can't get the word out and send the people to enforce your will far enough and fast enough. You have to be able to identify rebellious behavior in a timely manner. You then have to be able to move fast enough with enough resource to force people back into line. If you don't things get out of hand and that's the beginning of the end. But there were governments that were able to control relatively large areas for relatively long periods of time. One of them was China. So what was the trick?
Alexander and Genghis were each single individuals. At first blush it would seem that the Chinese system worked the same way. Didn't they depend on a single equivalent individual, the Emperor? But Emperors tended to come and go. Some were good and some were bad but through it all the Middle Kingdom endured. And the reason was that the Emperor was not that important to the continuation of the system.
China endured because they depended on a cultural system rather than on individual leaders, great or otherwise. Early on China developed a large bureaucracy that did the actual work of governance. To qualify to become a government bureaucrat you had to pass a rigorous examination. This acted as a filter. You had to have a reasonable level of intelligence and a serious work ethic in order to master the material. You also had to prove that you thoroughly understood Confucian philosophy, a philosophy that had a large and important ethical component. This did not filter out all the frauds and crooks but, all in all, it worked very well for a very long time. It could perhaps have worked for even longer if China had not been subjected to severe pressure by Europeans.
Bureaucrats that were well trained in the Confucian system fanned out over China to do the actual business of governance. Almost all decisions were made locally. This eliminated the delays inherent in the poor and slow communications possible at the time. The training necessary to pass the examination guaranteed that the world view and governing philosophy of these bureaucrats was reasonably uniform. How well did this work? Well, the Mongols invaded China and installed their own emperor. (See Marco Polo's writings for details.) But after a generation or so things were back to business as usual. The thousands of Confucian bureaucrats wore down the foreign ideas the Mongols attempted to introduce in the short time of only a generation or so. In the historical equivalent of a blink of an eye things were back to the Chinese norm.
China also demonstrates what I call the Feudal idea. The Feudal era in Europe is characterized by kings, right? Well, yes and no. The Kings were there but they did not operate in the way we now think of kings operating. In actuality feudal Europe consisted of a large number of small baronies. Each consisted of an individual operating out of a castle or other fortification. He controlled and administered the immediately surrounding lands. What does "immediately surrounding" mean? It means the distance you could ride a horse in a day or so. So something in the range of ten to fifty miles.
The local baron controlled his immediate surroundings. So where did the king come in? Feudalism implemented a hierarchical series of allegiances. The local baron would swear allegiance to a regional baron. This chain of allegiance would continue up the hierarchy to the King. But the effect of swearing allegiance was modest. Swearing allegiance meant promising to provide a number of troops when called upon and perhaps paying a "tax" in goods or money. This held rigidly on paper but not so much in actual practice. At the lowest level the local baron had tremendous power within his local fiefdom. Everyone else up the hierarchy had a great deal of titular power but very little actual power in most situations. The exception was in time of war. And this exception only held if the local barons made good on their pledge of troops.
The hierarchy part was also true in China. But in China's case the upper echelons also held actual power. That's why China during this period was an actual country with a government that operated on roughly modern lines while in the rest of the world countries for the most part were a country in name only. During its existence the Roman Empire followed the Chinese model. There was a hierarchy. The upper levels of that hierarchy held actual power so the government again functioned roughly as our modern sensibilities would dictate. This was also true in a few other places at a few other times. But instances of actual governance extending beyond the local level were few and far between.
And the Romans did something else that the Chinese did. They did what they could to make their transportation system work as well as the technology of the time permitted. The Romans were famous for building roads. The Chinese also built roads. But the Chinese took it a step further by also building canals and improving river borne transportation. It helped. But even the Romans and the Chinese fell far short of what we would expect of a modern government.
The closest more recent equivalent of a world government was the British Empire of the late 1800's. Here we again see the Chinese idea of cultural control being more important that physical control. The British did not have anything like the Chinese qualifying examination. But they did have "the playing fields of Eaton". The upper levels of their educational system were designed to turn out people who could fill colonial bureaucracies in a manner very much along the lines of the Chinese model. British civil servants were sent out to far flung outposts only after having been imbued with the same consistent world view and ethical standards as their peers.
The British world view and ethical standards were different than the Chinese ones. But like their Chinese predecessors, they were consistent from person to person. This allowed the British government to do the kind of delegating that the technology available at the time still required. Communications and transportation had sped up immensely when compared to that available to the Chinese. But it was still far from instantaneous and still not up to what would have been required to support a centralized approach.
With the Internet communications around the world is now instantaneous. So communication is not am impediment standing in the way of the successful formation of a world government. Nor is transportation. I defined the size of a feudal barony as being limited by how far a person could ride in a day or two. It is now possible to get from anywhere on earth to anywhere else in an airplane in less than a day. Large amounts of material can now be shipped from anywhere to anywhere in less than a month. So there is no practical impediment to the formation of a world government. The impediments are entirely political and cultural.
In "Civics 101 (see http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2015/12/civics-101.html) I pointed out that the Articles of Confederation, the document that defined how the US Government operated before the Constitution came into force, created a central government. This government was successful in prosecuting the Revolutionary War but unsuccessful in governing the country afterward. The reason for this is generally thought to be that the central government was weak. The Constitution changed this and the government it enabled is generally characterized as being strong. So what do we mean?
There are two key components that are to be found in strong governments and missing in weak ones. One is in the area of taxation. A strong government can on its own levy and collect taxes. A weak one has to rely on contributions from the "subsidiary" governments. The Articles laid out a responsibility of the states to contribute revenues for the use of the central government according to stated rules. But the states often failed to meet their obligations and the central government had no effective method of forcing them to comply. So the early US government was hamstrung by a lack of revenue.
The other key component of a strong government is preemption. In certain areas the central government is able to pass (and enforce) laws that preempt the laws of the subsidiary (e.g. state) governments. To the extent that the Articles conferred preemption power to the central government, it again did not provide a means of enforcement. So again the states ignored their obligations and the central government was further weakened due to its inability to force compliance. These weaknesses ultimately doomed the Articles-based government to failure. And the failure was so obvious that the need for change was quickly identified and the Constitution created and ratified. And the resulting government has proved to be a success.
With this in mind let's look at some other efforts at a true world government. The first attempt was the League of Nations. It was an outcome of the "Great War" (later renamed World War I when a second even greater war came along a generation later). It was obvious that the European Powers were incapable of avoiding a catastrophe like the Great War on their own. The Great War was such a great catastrophe that there was a lot of impetus behind the idea of never doing that again. And the obvious solution was to graft a world government on top of the various national governments. It's primary job would be to keep all nations in line so no one could start another Great War.
But the result was a weak government. It lacked the strong government powers of taxation and preemption. And it quickly and even more dramatically suffered the same fate as the Articles-era US government. It was completely ineffective and was unable to stop World War II. By the start of the War in 1939 the League had lost what little credibility and relevance it had started with.
After World War II we went down the same path. We created a new institution, the United Nations. But it suffered from the same weaknesses as the League of Nations. It was a weak central government that lacked the powers of taxation and preemption. Oh, some "rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic" grade changes were made. There is now a theoretically powerful Security Council. But any one of five Great Powers can veto any Security Council measure. So the weaknesses inherent in the lack of taxation and preemption are compounded by a super-Filibuster power. The UN is powerful in the fevered imagination of conspiracy theorists with their Black Helicopters but it is almost completely powerless in the real world.
So why do we keep going down the same path? The argument can be summarized in one word: sovereignty. The concept is simple. "I as a country can do whatever I want and no one else can stop me." It is an appealing idea and actually worked for the most part until about 1900. If a country did something and that something happened entirely within its own borders it seemed only common sense that whatever it was it was only the business of that one country. But what if I am building up a great big army? And then what if I use that army to invade your country? The invasion is an obvious and unambiguous breach of sovereignty. Okay, so what? The usual response of all other countries was "that's the business of the two countries involved". This was a practical position. No one wanted to be the policeman for the world.
In this era sovereignty was more of a propaganda point than anything serious. "I say old boy - jolly bad show." And, of course, there was an unwritten rule. Sovereignty was only something that the big boys (the Europeans) were entitled to. Ruddy natives in say India were not entitled and gentlemen knew this so the subject was never raised in polite company.
But World Wars I and II were fought between the big boys and the obvious way to avoid World War III was to respect sovereignty. But the "big buys" rule seems to still come into play all the way down to the present. US sovereignty is invoked to fend off activities by others against the US but, since Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and other countries are not "big boy" countries they are apparently not entitled to invoke sovereignty when trying to defend against the US invading them.
But sovereignty is a core argument against a strong world government. It is even frequently invoked against the pathetically weak UN. A strong world government cannot be permitted because it would be an assault on US sovereignty. But the implicit assumption in this line of thinking is that US sovereignty is complete or nearly complete now. But is it?
The US is a big boy so according to the rules it is allowed to assert and defend its sovereignty. So far so good. And conspiracy theorists see all kinds of blatant and subtle attacks on US sovereignty and it goes without saying they all need to be resisted. Hence the need to resist the wicked incursions of the "powerful" UN with its black helicopters everywhere. But wait -- there's more. How about all those wicked treaties, like the Geneva Convention that prohibits torture? See there's this thing about treaties. There is a Constitutional process for dealing with them. The President submits them to the US Senate. If the Senate ratifies a treaty it becomes part of US law.
There is a Constitutional way of revoking or modifying a treaty (see above). But if you don't do that then it's the law. And by "law" I mean US law. The Geneva Convention treaties went through the process and became US law. Since then the process for modifying or revoking them has not taken place. They are still the law and they were the law during the period when waterboarding and other types of torture were performed. In short, the US has voluntarily relinquished sovereignty in certain areas by passing laws or ratifying treaties. It has done this hundreds of times resulting in the relinquishment of sovereignty in thousands of areas.
But that's not the only way that the US has relinquished sovereignty. Laws and treaties are methods that involve our duly elected representatives (members of the House of Representatives, Senators, the President) relinquishing it. Is that all? Nope. Remember that business where I said communication and transportation have advanced to the point where world government is now practical. Well one way our interconnected world is made possible is by regulations, standards, agreements, conventions, etc. that govern how things are done. And these regulations, etc. are often formulated, promulgated, etc. by unelected representatives. In every practical sense these have the effect of law even though no elected body has passed on them.
A classic example is the Internet. The Internet is based on standards called RFCs for obscure historical reasons. No arm or component of the US government (or the UN) passed upon or approved these standards. Instead a bunch of geeks got together and said "let's do things this way". The Internet is technical. How about something mundane and a lot older like ships. There are international rules about how ships are built and operated. Who sets the rules? I don't know but I do know there are rules and they are rigidly enforced. I think some obscure agency of the UN now blesses them but the UN certainly has no direct enforcement ability.
And so it goes. In the modern world there are all kinds of rules and regulations that have the force of law that govern all kinds of aspects of our lives. Why can you transfer money anywhere in the world? How are the rules for airplanes and airports set? How can Apple design an iPhone in California, manufacture it in China, sell it all over the world, book the profits in a tax haven in some foreign country, and have that iPhone smoothly integrate with hundreds of telephone systems and cell phone networks around the world?
There are thousands of organizations writing the rules of the road around the world. These rules of the road behave in every important way like laws. They affect our daily lives in millions of ways. But what they do is done without any interaction with any US law passing body, be it Federal, State, County, or local. In each and every case they are a direct attack on what is commonly thought of as US sovereignty. So why no hew and cry? Because there is no political advantage to raising the issue. So no one raises the issue and no one gets all wound up about it. So these numerous and nameless bodies that are definitely not governments continue to quietly go about their business. And their business in indistinguishable from the law making that is the job of our legislative bodies.
Taken together these groups constitute a shadow world government. We live with their actions in exactly the same way that we live with the actions of Congress. But they are invisible. In many cases there is little or no oversight. Taken together they are as powerful or more powerful than any kind of secret government conspiracy theorists dream up. Taken together they definitely have far more power than the actual UN. Yet there is no hew and cry in spite of the fact that they are real and the secret governments the conspiracy theorists dream up are not. So the whole sovereignty based argument against a world government is bunk.
Are there real arguments against a world government? Sure. The most fundamental is that it is the kind of thing that is easy to get wrong. The world has now had a lot of experience with traditional national governments. And that experience tells us that there are a lot of ways to get it wrong. And we should now be able to do better. That very same experience should tell us "do it this way" and "don't do it that way". But "that way" governments continue to come into existence with depressing regularity.
And it is important to recognize that just because it is possible to so something badly is not a sufficient reason to not do it at all. Instead we should work carefully to do it right. That starts with deciding what it is supposed to do. Unfortunately, that is a large and contentious question. So I am going to skip past it. Here is what I am willing to weigh in on.
It should be a strong government. It should have taxing and preemption powers. The "Articles" US government, the League of Nations, the UN, and countless other examples lead me to believe that a weak government is a mistake. The other attribute it should definitely have is that it must be an elective government. People should vote directly for their representatives and chief executive. I think our founding fathers got it right when they observed that government legitimacy flows from "the consent of the governed". It is possible to have a government that is not democratically elected. It is even possible for that government to operate successfully and persist for long periods of time. But I think it will ultimately fail because of legitimacy issues.
My goal here is to make the subject of a real (i.e. strong) world government a legitimate subject open for discussion. If I have achieved that much I am content. If I have caused you to entertain the possibility that a world government might be a good idea then that's the cherry on the cake.
The right spends a great deal of time decrying political correctness. Implicit in their argument is that this is something that only the left does and also that it is always a bad thing. But the right has its own forms of political correctness that it attempts to rigidly enforce on all of us. They have actually had considerable success at this. A classic example of this is the word Socialism.
For many years the right succeeded in branding this concept as so bad on its face that it was not to be discussed in public by civilized people. They were so successful that the idea of Socialism has been completely absent from the public discourse for at least a decade. Anyone, they claimed, who characterized Socialism as anything but a swear word was obviously a bad person. Therefore anything that person might have to say should be (and for a long time was) completely ignored. Bernie Sanders has done us all a good turn by resurrecting the word Socialism. He has reintroducing it as something that can be spoken of in polite company. He has even gone so far as to convince many people that many Socialist ideas are actually good ideas.
But so far no one has performed the same service with respect to another idea. Conservatives have successfully shut down the possibility of any kind of serious discussion of the idea that forming a single world government might be a good idea. This idea has been out of fashion for quite some time. And the recent BREXIT vote, the vote in the United Kingdom to exit the European Union, is seen by many as proof that the world should move away from rather than toward such a thing.
I read a lot of Science Fiction. A lot of it takes it as a given that a world government would eventually evolve on Earth. This idea persists in Science Fiction to this day. But the conservative political correctness drive on this subject has been so successful that discussion of it is now found almost nowhere else. I think that is a sad state of affairs. So I am going to discuss it here. Some kind of stab at a world government has popped up in various places in history. That's where I am going to start.
For a long time and in most parts of the world what we had was the "Alexander the Great" model. From time to time some single specific individual would conquer an unusually large area. But the empire thus created tended to fall apart soon after the death of the "great leader". Genghis Kahn is another example of this sort of thing. But to be honest, regardless of how great the size of territory conquered appeared to people of the time, it still amounted to only a small portion of the then known world and an even smaller portion of the actual world.
And there is a good and sound reason for this. Transportation systems, whether we are talking about people or information, were not able to function quickly enough or effectively enough to permit a single unified government to control large areas. You can't impose your will if you can't get the word out and send the people to enforce your will far enough and fast enough. You have to be able to identify rebellious behavior in a timely manner. You then have to be able to move fast enough with enough resource to force people back into line. If you don't things get out of hand and that's the beginning of the end. But there were governments that were able to control relatively large areas for relatively long periods of time. One of them was China. So what was the trick?
Alexander and Genghis were each single individuals. At first blush it would seem that the Chinese system worked the same way. Didn't they depend on a single equivalent individual, the Emperor? But Emperors tended to come and go. Some were good and some were bad but through it all the Middle Kingdom endured. And the reason was that the Emperor was not that important to the continuation of the system.
China endured because they depended on a cultural system rather than on individual leaders, great or otherwise. Early on China developed a large bureaucracy that did the actual work of governance. To qualify to become a government bureaucrat you had to pass a rigorous examination. This acted as a filter. You had to have a reasonable level of intelligence and a serious work ethic in order to master the material. You also had to prove that you thoroughly understood Confucian philosophy, a philosophy that had a large and important ethical component. This did not filter out all the frauds and crooks but, all in all, it worked very well for a very long time. It could perhaps have worked for even longer if China had not been subjected to severe pressure by Europeans.
Bureaucrats that were well trained in the Confucian system fanned out over China to do the actual business of governance. Almost all decisions were made locally. This eliminated the delays inherent in the poor and slow communications possible at the time. The training necessary to pass the examination guaranteed that the world view and governing philosophy of these bureaucrats was reasonably uniform. How well did this work? Well, the Mongols invaded China and installed their own emperor. (See Marco Polo's writings for details.) But after a generation or so things were back to business as usual. The thousands of Confucian bureaucrats wore down the foreign ideas the Mongols attempted to introduce in the short time of only a generation or so. In the historical equivalent of a blink of an eye things were back to the Chinese norm.
China also demonstrates what I call the Feudal idea. The Feudal era in Europe is characterized by kings, right? Well, yes and no. The Kings were there but they did not operate in the way we now think of kings operating. In actuality feudal Europe consisted of a large number of small baronies. Each consisted of an individual operating out of a castle or other fortification. He controlled and administered the immediately surrounding lands. What does "immediately surrounding" mean? It means the distance you could ride a horse in a day or so. So something in the range of ten to fifty miles.
The local baron controlled his immediate surroundings. So where did the king come in? Feudalism implemented a hierarchical series of allegiances. The local baron would swear allegiance to a regional baron. This chain of allegiance would continue up the hierarchy to the King. But the effect of swearing allegiance was modest. Swearing allegiance meant promising to provide a number of troops when called upon and perhaps paying a "tax" in goods or money. This held rigidly on paper but not so much in actual practice. At the lowest level the local baron had tremendous power within his local fiefdom. Everyone else up the hierarchy had a great deal of titular power but very little actual power in most situations. The exception was in time of war. And this exception only held if the local barons made good on their pledge of troops.
The hierarchy part was also true in China. But in China's case the upper echelons also held actual power. That's why China during this period was an actual country with a government that operated on roughly modern lines while in the rest of the world countries for the most part were a country in name only. During its existence the Roman Empire followed the Chinese model. There was a hierarchy. The upper levels of that hierarchy held actual power so the government again functioned roughly as our modern sensibilities would dictate. This was also true in a few other places at a few other times. But instances of actual governance extending beyond the local level were few and far between.
And the Romans did something else that the Chinese did. They did what they could to make their transportation system work as well as the technology of the time permitted. The Romans were famous for building roads. The Chinese also built roads. But the Chinese took it a step further by also building canals and improving river borne transportation. It helped. But even the Romans and the Chinese fell far short of what we would expect of a modern government.
The closest more recent equivalent of a world government was the British Empire of the late 1800's. Here we again see the Chinese idea of cultural control being more important that physical control. The British did not have anything like the Chinese qualifying examination. But they did have "the playing fields of Eaton". The upper levels of their educational system were designed to turn out people who could fill colonial bureaucracies in a manner very much along the lines of the Chinese model. British civil servants were sent out to far flung outposts only after having been imbued with the same consistent world view and ethical standards as their peers.
The British world view and ethical standards were different than the Chinese ones. But like their Chinese predecessors, they were consistent from person to person. This allowed the British government to do the kind of delegating that the technology available at the time still required. Communications and transportation had sped up immensely when compared to that available to the Chinese. But it was still far from instantaneous and still not up to what would have been required to support a centralized approach.
With the Internet communications around the world is now instantaneous. So communication is not am impediment standing in the way of the successful formation of a world government. Nor is transportation. I defined the size of a feudal barony as being limited by how far a person could ride in a day or two. It is now possible to get from anywhere on earth to anywhere else in an airplane in less than a day. Large amounts of material can now be shipped from anywhere to anywhere in less than a month. So there is no practical impediment to the formation of a world government. The impediments are entirely political and cultural.
In "Civics 101 (see http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2015/12/civics-101.html) I pointed out that the Articles of Confederation, the document that defined how the US Government operated before the Constitution came into force, created a central government. This government was successful in prosecuting the Revolutionary War but unsuccessful in governing the country afterward. The reason for this is generally thought to be that the central government was weak. The Constitution changed this and the government it enabled is generally characterized as being strong. So what do we mean?
There are two key components that are to be found in strong governments and missing in weak ones. One is in the area of taxation. A strong government can on its own levy and collect taxes. A weak one has to rely on contributions from the "subsidiary" governments. The Articles laid out a responsibility of the states to contribute revenues for the use of the central government according to stated rules. But the states often failed to meet their obligations and the central government had no effective method of forcing them to comply. So the early US government was hamstrung by a lack of revenue.
The other key component of a strong government is preemption. In certain areas the central government is able to pass (and enforce) laws that preempt the laws of the subsidiary (e.g. state) governments. To the extent that the Articles conferred preemption power to the central government, it again did not provide a means of enforcement. So again the states ignored their obligations and the central government was further weakened due to its inability to force compliance. These weaknesses ultimately doomed the Articles-based government to failure. And the failure was so obvious that the need for change was quickly identified and the Constitution created and ratified. And the resulting government has proved to be a success.
With this in mind let's look at some other efforts at a true world government. The first attempt was the League of Nations. It was an outcome of the "Great War" (later renamed World War I when a second even greater war came along a generation later). It was obvious that the European Powers were incapable of avoiding a catastrophe like the Great War on their own. The Great War was such a great catastrophe that there was a lot of impetus behind the idea of never doing that again. And the obvious solution was to graft a world government on top of the various national governments. It's primary job would be to keep all nations in line so no one could start another Great War.
But the result was a weak government. It lacked the strong government powers of taxation and preemption. And it quickly and even more dramatically suffered the same fate as the Articles-era US government. It was completely ineffective and was unable to stop World War II. By the start of the War in 1939 the League had lost what little credibility and relevance it had started with.
After World War II we went down the same path. We created a new institution, the United Nations. But it suffered from the same weaknesses as the League of Nations. It was a weak central government that lacked the powers of taxation and preemption. Oh, some "rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic" grade changes were made. There is now a theoretically powerful Security Council. But any one of five Great Powers can veto any Security Council measure. So the weaknesses inherent in the lack of taxation and preemption are compounded by a super-Filibuster power. The UN is powerful in the fevered imagination of conspiracy theorists with their Black Helicopters but it is almost completely powerless in the real world.
So why do we keep going down the same path? The argument can be summarized in one word: sovereignty. The concept is simple. "I as a country can do whatever I want and no one else can stop me." It is an appealing idea and actually worked for the most part until about 1900. If a country did something and that something happened entirely within its own borders it seemed only common sense that whatever it was it was only the business of that one country. But what if I am building up a great big army? And then what if I use that army to invade your country? The invasion is an obvious and unambiguous breach of sovereignty. Okay, so what? The usual response of all other countries was "that's the business of the two countries involved". This was a practical position. No one wanted to be the policeman for the world.
In this era sovereignty was more of a propaganda point than anything serious. "I say old boy - jolly bad show." And, of course, there was an unwritten rule. Sovereignty was only something that the big boys (the Europeans) were entitled to. Ruddy natives in say India were not entitled and gentlemen knew this so the subject was never raised in polite company.
But World Wars I and II were fought between the big boys and the obvious way to avoid World War III was to respect sovereignty. But the "big buys" rule seems to still come into play all the way down to the present. US sovereignty is invoked to fend off activities by others against the US but, since Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and other countries are not "big boy" countries they are apparently not entitled to invoke sovereignty when trying to defend against the US invading them.
But sovereignty is a core argument against a strong world government. It is even frequently invoked against the pathetically weak UN. A strong world government cannot be permitted because it would be an assault on US sovereignty. But the implicit assumption in this line of thinking is that US sovereignty is complete or nearly complete now. But is it?
The US is a big boy so according to the rules it is allowed to assert and defend its sovereignty. So far so good. And conspiracy theorists see all kinds of blatant and subtle attacks on US sovereignty and it goes without saying they all need to be resisted. Hence the need to resist the wicked incursions of the "powerful" UN with its black helicopters everywhere. But wait -- there's more. How about all those wicked treaties, like the Geneva Convention that prohibits torture? See there's this thing about treaties. There is a Constitutional process for dealing with them. The President submits them to the US Senate. If the Senate ratifies a treaty it becomes part of US law.
There is a Constitutional way of revoking or modifying a treaty (see above). But if you don't do that then it's the law. And by "law" I mean US law. The Geneva Convention treaties went through the process and became US law. Since then the process for modifying or revoking them has not taken place. They are still the law and they were the law during the period when waterboarding and other types of torture were performed. In short, the US has voluntarily relinquished sovereignty in certain areas by passing laws or ratifying treaties. It has done this hundreds of times resulting in the relinquishment of sovereignty in thousands of areas.
But that's not the only way that the US has relinquished sovereignty. Laws and treaties are methods that involve our duly elected representatives (members of the House of Representatives, Senators, the President) relinquishing it. Is that all? Nope. Remember that business where I said communication and transportation have advanced to the point where world government is now practical. Well one way our interconnected world is made possible is by regulations, standards, agreements, conventions, etc. that govern how things are done. And these regulations, etc. are often formulated, promulgated, etc. by unelected representatives. In every practical sense these have the effect of law even though no elected body has passed on them.
A classic example is the Internet. The Internet is based on standards called RFCs for obscure historical reasons. No arm or component of the US government (or the UN) passed upon or approved these standards. Instead a bunch of geeks got together and said "let's do things this way". The Internet is technical. How about something mundane and a lot older like ships. There are international rules about how ships are built and operated. Who sets the rules? I don't know but I do know there are rules and they are rigidly enforced. I think some obscure agency of the UN now blesses them but the UN certainly has no direct enforcement ability.
And so it goes. In the modern world there are all kinds of rules and regulations that have the force of law that govern all kinds of aspects of our lives. Why can you transfer money anywhere in the world? How are the rules for airplanes and airports set? How can Apple design an iPhone in California, manufacture it in China, sell it all over the world, book the profits in a tax haven in some foreign country, and have that iPhone smoothly integrate with hundreds of telephone systems and cell phone networks around the world?
There are thousands of organizations writing the rules of the road around the world. These rules of the road behave in every important way like laws. They affect our daily lives in millions of ways. But what they do is done without any interaction with any US law passing body, be it Federal, State, County, or local. In each and every case they are a direct attack on what is commonly thought of as US sovereignty. So why no hew and cry? Because there is no political advantage to raising the issue. So no one raises the issue and no one gets all wound up about it. So these numerous and nameless bodies that are definitely not governments continue to quietly go about their business. And their business in indistinguishable from the law making that is the job of our legislative bodies.
Taken together these groups constitute a shadow world government. We live with their actions in exactly the same way that we live with the actions of Congress. But they are invisible. In many cases there is little or no oversight. Taken together they are as powerful or more powerful than any kind of secret government conspiracy theorists dream up. Taken together they definitely have far more power than the actual UN. Yet there is no hew and cry in spite of the fact that they are real and the secret governments the conspiracy theorists dream up are not. So the whole sovereignty based argument against a world government is bunk.
Are there real arguments against a world government? Sure. The most fundamental is that it is the kind of thing that is easy to get wrong. The world has now had a lot of experience with traditional national governments. And that experience tells us that there are a lot of ways to get it wrong. And we should now be able to do better. That very same experience should tell us "do it this way" and "don't do it that way". But "that way" governments continue to come into existence with depressing regularity.
And it is important to recognize that just because it is possible to so something badly is not a sufficient reason to not do it at all. Instead we should work carefully to do it right. That starts with deciding what it is supposed to do. Unfortunately, that is a large and contentious question. So I am going to skip past it. Here is what I am willing to weigh in on.
It should be a strong government. It should have taxing and preemption powers. The "Articles" US government, the League of Nations, the UN, and countless other examples lead me to believe that a weak government is a mistake. The other attribute it should definitely have is that it must be an elective government. People should vote directly for their representatives and chief executive. I think our founding fathers got it right when they observed that government legitimacy flows from "the consent of the governed". It is possible to have a government that is not democratically elected. It is even possible for that government to operate successfully and persist for long periods of time. But I think it will ultimately fail because of legitimacy issues.
My goal here is to make the subject of a real (i.e. strong) world government a legitimate subject open for discussion. If I have achieved that much I am content. If I have caused you to entertain the possibility that a world government might be a good idea then that's the cherry on the cake.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Death Merchants
Recently I binge watched "The Night Manager". It is a six episode miniseries broadcast on AMC in April and May of this year. It is based on the book of the same name by John le Carre. Mr. le Carre is an astute observer of the intelligence business. That was his line of business before he became a successful novelist. So there is always an interesting subtext to his books. And that subtext is prominently featured in the show.
The show centers around an arms merchant and an arms deal. For a long time, and rightly so, the nickname of arms dealers was "Death Merchants". They literally traffic in the machinery that enables the slaughter of enormous numbers of people. The name has passed out of fashion but the business has stayed the same. And the business as a business has not actually been around that long.
The first modern arms merchant was the Krupp organization. For a long time arms were manufactured by governments in armories. Then an armory was a manufacturing facility. Now it is simply a place where military arms and equipment is stored. Or, in a lot of cases, a former armory that has been repurposed for general public use. So why did governments manufacture arms? In a word, control. Governments knew arms were extremely dangerous. They wanted to maintain complete control. The best way to do this was to keep all phases of the manufacture, distribution, and use of arms in house.
The Krupp family was one of the first civilian operations to challenge this. The Krupps started out in the steel business. In the late 1800's the steel business was evolving rapidly. Most notably, the Bessemer process was introduced at this time. This process made it possible to produce a number of different kinds of high quality steel cheaply and in quantity. And one of the major uses of steel was in arms. This was particularly true of artillery weapons.
Better steel made for better and cheaper artillery guns. So the Krupps were able to introduce "new and improved" artillery guns. And Germany was just coalescing as a country. So selling solely to the German government restricted sales opportunities. And the government was weak initially so they were in no position to block foreign sales. This permitted the Krupps to sell all over Europe. They made a lot of money doing this.
So what's the defense to a good artillery gun? Armor. And what's armor made of? Steel. So the Krupps were able to sell artillery pieces. Then they were able to sell armor to the enemies of their customers. This in turn created a market for a better and more powerful artillery gun. Bingo! Another round of sales as continued improvements in steel made it possible to create better guns. And this in turn necessitated more and better armor.
The Krupp family invented the concept of an arms race and profited greatly from the invention. And soon other companies got into the game. And that's how we came to have the gigantic "defense" industry of today. And this industry is still adept at playing the arms race game to justify yet another round of very expensive and very profitable "new and improved" military weapons. The only real change is that the industry has diversified into all kinds of military gear and no longer restricts itself to just artillery pieces and armor.
So there are a lot of defense contractors out there that are hungry for the next sale. And that's where arms merchants come in. And the arms business has featured prominently in popular culture for generations. The "Little Orphan Annie" newspaper comic strip, launched in 1924, featured a character named Daddy Warbucks. Why "Warbucks"? Because he was an arms merchant. The Broadway show and subsequent movie "Annie" minimize this aspect of the character. But that was not true in the first couple of decades of the comic strip's run.
In 2005 the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War" was an arms merchant/arms deal movie that had a lot of similarities to "The Night Manager". And a more serious student of the cinema than I am can easily find many more examples of the movies and TV shows exploring the arms business. And for the most part they follow a formula. You have the good guys trying to shut down the bad guy arms merchant. Reduced to its essence that is true of "Lord of War", "The Night Manager", and other examples of the genre. At some level most people think trafficking in arms is a nasty business. So the trafficker is the bad guy and the people trying to stop him are the good guys.
What is different about "The Night Manager" is that this show makes explicit the complicity of the government. Le Carre is British and writes about Brits. So in this case it is the British government that is looking the other way. It was the British government misbehaving in "The Night Manager". But other stories featuring other nationalities should also change the government because everybody does it. Kudos to Mr. le Carre for having the honesty to shed light on this. But it is also important to note that "The Night Manager" does pull its punches to some extent. The government complicity is portrayed not as official policy but rather as the activities of "rogue elements". Let me translate that. The more appropriate operative phrase is "plausible deniability".
And that's where pretty much everyone gets this wrong. The arms merchants are portrayed as operating outside the system. They are independent agents. But how real is this independence? In the real world "independent" arms merchants exist to serve a purpose and that purpose is plausible deniability. We are told these stories about independent rogue arms merchants because it makes us feel better. And to some extent they exist. But this is because there are numerous governments that need a mechanism through which to funnel arms to this group or that. Often these groups are unsavory or an official connection is inconvenient. But if the arms are funneled through an "independent arms merchant" then the problem is solved.
This is illustrated in the "Charlie Wilson's War" events. I discussed this book and movie in a post I made back in 2011. Here's the link: http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2011/06/pakistan.html. Mr. Wilson's War was the one the US prosecuted by proxy in Afghanistan in the early '80s. The Russians (then the U.S.S.R.) had invaded Afghanistan. We saw an opportunity to embarrass them by supporting a domestic opposition. But for political reasons we need to keep our fingerprints off this support. So what we did was to get Saudi Arabia to fund things. We then got Israel and Egypt to front for the whole operation.
Egypt was particularly important because they are an Arabic country and not a hated western country like the US or Israel. They were also important because they had huge stockpiles of Soviet weapons. So when these weapons showed up on the battlefield we could say "They are not our guns -- go talk to someone else". Everybody knew what was really going on. Oh, the details of the Saudi - Israeli - Egyptian front operation only emerged much later. But everyone knew the U.S. was behind the whole thing. But we could "plausibly deny" it and others could "plausibly believe" us. This smoke screen made it much easier on countries and people who generally supported tossing the Russians out of Afghanistan but for one reason or another needed to be able to put some public distance between themselves and the US.
The Charlie Wilson's War situation is a nice example where everything has since come out and we can now study the details of how it all worked. But this situation where governments need a cut-out is actually common. And it is common enough to keep an ever changing cast of "independent arms merchants" in business. None of them are able to get into business or stay in business without the tacit support of one or more governments. The trick for these people is to reliably service the needs of their sponsors while staying out of the direct line of fire of their detractors.
And it is another polite fiction that these people are a significant part of the problem. They are all small beer. The deal in "The Night Porter" was supposedly valued at $600 million. That sounds like a lot of money. But it's not. The Stockholm Peace Research Institute is considered the best independent source for information on international arms sales. In 2015 alone, the US exported over $10 billion dollars worth (in 1990 dollars) of arms. The deal in the show was a $0.6 billion dollar deal. It was a rounding error in the figure for US sales for one year. The same study showed roughly two dollars of sales by the rest of the world for every dollar of US sales. The size of the sale in the show is similar to say the sale of perhaps a dozen second tier fighter jets. A routine sale like that wouldn't even make the news.
This whole focus on "independent arms dealers" allows us all to pretend that they are the problem rather than us through our governments. And consider this. A new assault weapon (AK-47, M-16, M-4) costs in round numbers $500. How many Afghan subsistence farmers or Iraqi small business owners or Syrian sheep herders or other poor people swept up in war have a spare $500 laying around? The answer is that very few of them do. Yet these war zones are awash in assault weapons. What's going on? Well, some tax payer somewhere is funneling large amounts of money through some back channel or another to pay to get these kinds of guns into the hands of desperately poor people.
Trust me. The company that makes the gun is paid full list price for the gun. And over time there is another result. Somewhere, Egypt in the case of Charlie Wilson's War, there are warehouses full of guns left over from this or that conflict or from one politically inspired arms deal or another. The Soviets sold Egypt lots of arms back in the day to gain influence. Now we sell arms to Egypt for exactly the same reason.
These stockpiles of no longer needed guns, bombs, etc. are then available to support large eruptions of violence at a different time or in a different place. The "dead ender" forces that opposed us after 2003 in Iraq were amply armed. How? Well, over the years we had sold vast quantities or arms to Saddam. These were stored in vast warehouses, armories, and ammo dumps that were left unsecured when we declared "Mission Accomplished". The bad guys just hauled away these stolen weapons in stolen trucks and later pointed them at our troops. And guess what? ISIS did the same thing again a couple of years ago when the current Iraqi government bungled things in Ambar Province.
Guns don't evaporate over time. If no one makes a concerted effort to get rid of them they just sit around until someone gets their hands on them and starts making use of them. There has been a concerted effort to get rid of poison gas. This effort has been surprisingly effective. There has also been a concerted effort to get rid of land mines. This has also been surprisingly effective. Finally, there has been a concerted effort to get rid of nuclear weapons. That goal looks impossible to achieve and I'm not sure it is a good idea. But there has been substantial and successful efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles, reduce "loose" nuclear material, and secure the remaining nuclear weapons.
But, while this is all to the good, these three categories represent a tiny fraction of the types of dangerous weapons out there. And there is no progress on any of them. An old saw councils us that "when you are in a hole the first step is to stop digging". Yet, spectacular though the figures on arms shipments are, they represent only a small portion of new weapon production. If we can't stop digging we should at least dig more slowly.
The show centers around an arms merchant and an arms deal. For a long time, and rightly so, the nickname of arms dealers was "Death Merchants". They literally traffic in the machinery that enables the slaughter of enormous numbers of people. The name has passed out of fashion but the business has stayed the same. And the business as a business has not actually been around that long.
The first modern arms merchant was the Krupp organization. For a long time arms were manufactured by governments in armories. Then an armory was a manufacturing facility. Now it is simply a place where military arms and equipment is stored. Or, in a lot of cases, a former armory that has been repurposed for general public use. So why did governments manufacture arms? In a word, control. Governments knew arms were extremely dangerous. They wanted to maintain complete control. The best way to do this was to keep all phases of the manufacture, distribution, and use of arms in house.
The Krupp family was one of the first civilian operations to challenge this. The Krupps started out in the steel business. In the late 1800's the steel business was evolving rapidly. Most notably, the Bessemer process was introduced at this time. This process made it possible to produce a number of different kinds of high quality steel cheaply and in quantity. And one of the major uses of steel was in arms. This was particularly true of artillery weapons.
Better steel made for better and cheaper artillery guns. So the Krupps were able to introduce "new and improved" artillery guns. And Germany was just coalescing as a country. So selling solely to the German government restricted sales opportunities. And the government was weak initially so they were in no position to block foreign sales. This permitted the Krupps to sell all over Europe. They made a lot of money doing this.
So what's the defense to a good artillery gun? Armor. And what's armor made of? Steel. So the Krupps were able to sell artillery pieces. Then they were able to sell armor to the enemies of their customers. This in turn created a market for a better and more powerful artillery gun. Bingo! Another round of sales as continued improvements in steel made it possible to create better guns. And this in turn necessitated more and better armor.
The Krupp family invented the concept of an arms race and profited greatly from the invention. And soon other companies got into the game. And that's how we came to have the gigantic "defense" industry of today. And this industry is still adept at playing the arms race game to justify yet another round of very expensive and very profitable "new and improved" military weapons. The only real change is that the industry has diversified into all kinds of military gear and no longer restricts itself to just artillery pieces and armor.
So there are a lot of defense contractors out there that are hungry for the next sale. And that's where arms merchants come in. And the arms business has featured prominently in popular culture for generations. The "Little Orphan Annie" newspaper comic strip, launched in 1924, featured a character named Daddy Warbucks. Why "Warbucks"? Because he was an arms merchant. The Broadway show and subsequent movie "Annie" minimize this aspect of the character. But that was not true in the first couple of decades of the comic strip's run.
In 2005 the Nicholas Cage movie "Lord of War" was an arms merchant/arms deal movie that had a lot of similarities to "The Night Manager". And a more serious student of the cinema than I am can easily find many more examples of the movies and TV shows exploring the arms business. And for the most part they follow a formula. You have the good guys trying to shut down the bad guy arms merchant. Reduced to its essence that is true of "Lord of War", "The Night Manager", and other examples of the genre. At some level most people think trafficking in arms is a nasty business. So the trafficker is the bad guy and the people trying to stop him are the good guys.
What is different about "The Night Manager" is that this show makes explicit the complicity of the government. Le Carre is British and writes about Brits. So in this case it is the British government that is looking the other way. It was the British government misbehaving in "The Night Manager". But other stories featuring other nationalities should also change the government because everybody does it. Kudos to Mr. le Carre for having the honesty to shed light on this. But it is also important to note that "The Night Manager" does pull its punches to some extent. The government complicity is portrayed not as official policy but rather as the activities of "rogue elements". Let me translate that. The more appropriate operative phrase is "plausible deniability".
And that's where pretty much everyone gets this wrong. The arms merchants are portrayed as operating outside the system. They are independent agents. But how real is this independence? In the real world "independent" arms merchants exist to serve a purpose and that purpose is plausible deniability. We are told these stories about independent rogue arms merchants because it makes us feel better. And to some extent they exist. But this is because there are numerous governments that need a mechanism through which to funnel arms to this group or that. Often these groups are unsavory or an official connection is inconvenient. But if the arms are funneled through an "independent arms merchant" then the problem is solved.
This is illustrated in the "Charlie Wilson's War" events. I discussed this book and movie in a post I made back in 2011. Here's the link: http://sigma5.blogspot.com/2011/06/pakistan.html. Mr. Wilson's War was the one the US prosecuted by proxy in Afghanistan in the early '80s. The Russians (then the U.S.S.R.) had invaded Afghanistan. We saw an opportunity to embarrass them by supporting a domestic opposition. But for political reasons we need to keep our fingerprints off this support. So what we did was to get Saudi Arabia to fund things. We then got Israel and Egypt to front for the whole operation.
Egypt was particularly important because they are an Arabic country and not a hated western country like the US or Israel. They were also important because they had huge stockpiles of Soviet weapons. So when these weapons showed up on the battlefield we could say "They are not our guns -- go talk to someone else". Everybody knew what was really going on. Oh, the details of the Saudi - Israeli - Egyptian front operation only emerged much later. But everyone knew the U.S. was behind the whole thing. But we could "plausibly deny" it and others could "plausibly believe" us. This smoke screen made it much easier on countries and people who generally supported tossing the Russians out of Afghanistan but for one reason or another needed to be able to put some public distance between themselves and the US.
The Charlie Wilson's War situation is a nice example where everything has since come out and we can now study the details of how it all worked. But this situation where governments need a cut-out is actually common. And it is common enough to keep an ever changing cast of "independent arms merchants" in business. None of them are able to get into business or stay in business without the tacit support of one or more governments. The trick for these people is to reliably service the needs of their sponsors while staying out of the direct line of fire of their detractors.
And it is another polite fiction that these people are a significant part of the problem. They are all small beer. The deal in "The Night Porter" was supposedly valued at $600 million. That sounds like a lot of money. But it's not. The Stockholm Peace Research Institute is considered the best independent source for information on international arms sales. In 2015 alone, the US exported over $10 billion dollars worth (in 1990 dollars) of arms. The deal in the show was a $0.6 billion dollar deal. It was a rounding error in the figure for US sales for one year. The same study showed roughly two dollars of sales by the rest of the world for every dollar of US sales. The size of the sale in the show is similar to say the sale of perhaps a dozen second tier fighter jets. A routine sale like that wouldn't even make the news.
This whole focus on "independent arms dealers" allows us all to pretend that they are the problem rather than us through our governments. And consider this. A new assault weapon (AK-47, M-16, M-4) costs in round numbers $500. How many Afghan subsistence farmers or Iraqi small business owners or Syrian sheep herders or other poor people swept up in war have a spare $500 laying around? The answer is that very few of them do. Yet these war zones are awash in assault weapons. What's going on? Well, some tax payer somewhere is funneling large amounts of money through some back channel or another to pay to get these kinds of guns into the hands of desperately poor people.
Trust me. The company that makes the gun is paid full list price for the gun. And over time there is another result. Somewhere, Egypt in the case of Charlie Wilson's War, there are warehouses full of guns left over from this or that conflict or from one politically inspired arms deal or another. The Soviets sold Egypt lots of arms back in the day to gain influence. Now we sell arms to Egypt for exactly the same reason.
These stockpiles of no longer needed guns, bombs, etc. are then available to support large eruptions of violence at a different time or in a different place. The "dead ender" forces that opposed us after 2003 in Iraq were amply armed. How? Well, over the years we had sold vast quantities or arms to Saddam. These were stored in vast warehouses, armories, and ammo dumps that were left unsecured when we declared "Mission Accomplished". The bad guys just hauled away these stolen weapons in stolen trucks and later pointed them at our troops. And guess what? ISIS did the same thing again a couple of years ago when the current Iraqi government bungled things in Ambar Province.
Guns don't evaporate over time. If no one makes a concerted effort to get rid of them they just sit around until someone gets their hands on them and starts making use of them. There has been a concerted effort to get rid of poison gas. This effort has been surprisingly effective. There has also been a concerted effort to get rid of land mines. This has also been surprisingly effective. Finally, there has been a concerted effort to get rid of nuclear weapons. That goal looks impossible to achieve and I'm not sure it is a good idea. But there has been substantial and successful efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles, reduce "loose" nuclear material, and secure the remaining nuclear weapons.
But, while this is all to the good, these three categories represent a tiny fraction of the types of dangerous weapons out there. And there is no progress on any of them. An old saw councils us that "when you are in a hole the first step is to stop digging". Yet, spectacular though the figures on arms shipments are, they represent only a small portion of new weapon production. If we can't stop digging we should at least dig more slowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)