Showing posts with label Other. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Other. Show all posts

2026/03/28

Hegseth and tunnel vision

.

I noticed some not fully idiotic people on Twitter are praising Hegseth. 

That seems ludicrous considering the overt stupidity and incompetence among other things, but bear with me - there's a reason.

 

Consider this: The status quo is a set of compromises. These compromises have upsides and downsides. Many (maybe all) of these compromises are suboptimal. 

Now imagine you're a zealot regarding a single issue or a handful of issues. You're vehemently opposed to the downsides of certain compromises and you may actually be correct about that, too. Being a zealot, you apply a tunnel vision. The things you care the most about get weighted like 95%, all else 5% - at least until something terrible happens to you or people whom you love. 

Then there's Hegseth acting as wrecking ball against decency and integrity,  wrecking some of those compromises without replacing them with better compromises.

The tunnel vision guy that you are notices that Hegseth wrecked compromises that caused downsides that you zealously hate and campaigned against. You apply the issue weighing of 95% and suddenly Hegseth looks like the saviour to you.

 

Meanwhile, people who pay attention at a more wide angle easily see that Hegseth is worse than even the warmonger Rumsfeld, who deservedly burns in hell right now.



S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2026/03/15

About optimizing and scale

.

There's a curious thing happening when I do thought experiments, trying to optimise things to the best of my knowledge, processing ability (and preferences):

Answers ends up being very concise, clear and elegant when I look at the macro level.

Answers often end up very detailed and non-standardised when I look at the micro level.

This is for the same problem, such as "What should have been done about German anti-tank challenges by early 1942?".

I noticed this pattern repeatedly. 

- - - - -

This leads to a mystery: Which set of answers is actually the better one?

The micro set could be better because it's taking into account details

The macro set could be better because it's taking into account the big picture. 

- - - - -

I do suspect that armed bureaucracies mostly apply the micro approach because top leadership rarely forces elegant, decisive decisions that fit the macro answer pattern. They delegate and lots of subordinates ponder about micro level problems, coming up with many detailed answers.

 

IMO we could look at macro level to devise answers, then take the micro level into account to see whether the answers are feasible. To look at the micro level for more options leads away from standardisation, elegance, simplicity and in the end - it (likely) leads away from efficiency. 

 

This might be part of the answer to why armed bureaucracies fail to standardise vehicles, munitions and even training properly. It may thus in turn be part of the answer why armed bureaucracies have such very high costs.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2025/12/31

Happy New Year

.

Let's hope 2026 gets better. 

We've had enough really bad years in the West for a lifetime since 2001.



S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2025/08/08

Ethnic cleansing complicity by accepting refugees?

.

Here's a difficult thing about ethnic cleansing. Suppose the evil party wants a people gone, ded or alive. Just gone from a specific area. They inflict harm on them. Now there's a third party and it has to decide whether to accept refugees.

To accept refugees means to assist the evil party in its plan. Such acceptance of refugees may even be a necessary part of the evil plan. To not accept them means they will suffer harm.

The right thing to do would be to intervene and force the evil party to stop its evil actions, but suppose that would not be practical for whatever reason: 

Should the refugees be accepted or not?

Would help in evacuation / resettling equal complicity in ethnic cleansing?

 

The international law scholars certainly have opinions on this and possibly they even have a consensus. I didn't bother to check this, for this time I'm rather thinking about the ethical dimension than the legal one.


S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

 

*: Pretend it's only about the quesiton of agreeing with another country taking them in, suhc as permitting evacuation flights over territory if an aversion to let certain brown people into your country gets in the way of thinking clealry and within the limits of this case / model.

.

2025/08/02

Guilty or not?

.
Suppose a man gets killed in his home. He had a long and violent dispute with his neighbour.
 
Should the police investigate said neighbour as suspect even though his grandma was murdered 80 years ago?
 
Or does this mean the neighbour cannot be guilty?
 
 

S O
.

2025/06/16

Hostility caused by fundamental misunderstanding

.
I ask you to read this (shockingly, already 15 years old!) blog post first:

So, Iran is sponsoring terrorism abroad, right?
graphic taken from U.S. Congress

 
Well, look at the following map and search for "coincidences":
regarding copyright: see lower bound of image

The so-called proxies turn out to be Shia / Shi'ite groups outside of Iran.
 
This opens the possibility that the Western public (not terribly literate on such issues) misunderstands Iran's policy regarding support for outside groups. It might actually be about
  • support for religious fellows who are (or feel) oppressed by sunni-dominated governments
  • an effort to overcome the solitude as only Shia country by having at least some friends abroad 
Again (I wrote so previously), maybe the best approach to overcome the war in Yemen including the Red Sea crisis and missile launches on Israel is to split Yemen into a Shia state and a Sunni state. The unification of both Yemens was an obvious mistake.
We should have a peace conference with incentives to both Houthis and their main opponents to agree to a partition (preferably with better-drawn borders, but a decent seaport for the Houthis) rather than focusing on shooting down Houthi munitions and bombing them targets in Houthi-controlled territory.
 
Lebanon's issues could be addressed by replacing the Shia sponsor Iran with a more secular, more international order-focused sponsorship.
 
 
Last but not least another thought; even a democratic Iran would still be majority Shia and might still behave very similarly, feeling solidarity with Shias abroad, supporting their cause in some way, including arming them!
 

S O
.

2025/04/10

Two paths to Fascism / A permanent challenge for societies IV

.

I think I figured out why people have such a hard time to believe that the current American government is Fascist.

There are two paths to fascism. 

One entails forming an ideology based on certain roots, jingoism, it includes building up organisations, rewriting/reinterpreting national mythology and history. The mythically inflated nation becomes supreme to the individual. It's an effort of thousands of people.

The other path is to simply be an ignorant piece of shit who doesn't give a shit about the well-being of fellow citizens. This path is just fine for ignoramuses, including those who fell for propaganda lies that amoral yet intelligent people devised decades earlier. This path leads to Fascists who don't proclaim to be Fascists, and make minimal use of Fascist-y visual elements. Basically, this is Fascism as the natural destination of moronic sociopaths.

The challenge is probably not so much to be alert and push back against the beginnings of formal Fascism. The challenge for the society is rather to keep dangerous idiots away from extraordinary power.

 

But I repeat myself.

/2009/07/permanent-challenge-for-societies.html

/2012/09/a-permanent-challenge-for-societies-ii.html

/2013/08/a-permanent-challenge-for-societies-iii_5.html



S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2024/05/18

A reminder

.
Considering this

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

I'd like to recommend a couple past blog posts to you:

/2019/12/lets-open-our-eyes-to-ugly-reality-as.html

/2023/12/a-president-they-deserve.html

/2022/07/threat-country-ranking-for-germany-top.html

 

Europeans need to wake up to more than one threat and we need to eject the tunnel vision "Atlantiker" (friendship with America ideologues) from positions of influence.



S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2024/01/27

The victim card was played too brazenly

.
It appears that playing the victim card to get a carte blanche to commit offences yourself doesn't work so well for Israel any more. They're so much used to it that they don't seem to be able to follow a different approach, though.


The death toll of the October 7th attacks by Hamas appears to be roughly 1/3 combatants (I'm not sure whether this includes deaths among those who were taken prisoner by Hamas fighters and other Gaza Strip inhabitants).

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths

This compares very unfavourably (for Israel) to the ratio of civilian to non-combatant deaths in Gaza Strip by the counteroffensive.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/fight-keep-counting-dead-gaza-2023-12-21/

Moreover, Israel keeps producing evidence that its armed forces are intentionally destroying the real estate in Gaza Strip, including all universities.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/24/1226534897/israel-has-destroyed-hundreds-of-educational-institutions-in-gaza-since-the-war

The demolitions were actual demolitions, by a long shot not all damage done during combat. Many already swept buildings were destroyed by demolition charges, which is hardly ever justifiable.

  

The conflict in the levante is a conflict of counterviolence to counterviolence. Any claim that a particular action is a response to an original aggression is laughable. The people who started the conflict were already disposed of by biology. There's little point in trying to figure out who is more at guilt than the other in such a cycle of counterviolence. Words don't matter much, either - actions matter. Israel is killing way more civilians, and has been doing so for decades already. It couldn't have come this far without playing the victim card so effectively for so long, and it won't get much farther if that doesn't work any more.


Israel should stop being drunk on its perceived power and mind the fate of the crusader states: They didn't collapse because the Arabs beat them in battle; they dwindled away when the overseas allies lost interest in supporting them. Their overseas allies lost interest in supporting them because they lost confidence in that crusades were a worthy cause.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2023/12/30

A president they deserve?

.

I saw an interesting thought on the internet: What if Kim Jong-Un would run for president in the U.S. (assuming he was eligible; natural born citizen and not an insurrectionist).

I suppose the person who wrote that thought meant to imply that a certain party would fall for such a candidate. I'm not sure said person got right which party would do so.

Kim Jong-Un (c)DonkeyHotey

What would Kim Jong-Un bring to the table?

  • He's fat.
  • He's demanding total loyalty.
  • He's got a weird haircut.
  • He wants to jail political opponents.
  • He wants total loyalty of law enforcement to himself (rather than to the law).
  • He  wants total loyalty of the judiciary to himself (rather than to the law).
  • He boasts all the time (or lets mouthpieces do it for him).
  • He loves the allegiance of "his" generals.
  • He would love cheerleading news and pundits.
  • He loves to play with rockets.
  • He brings family members into positions of power.
  • He sets up a family member as likely successor.
  • He doesn't respect women other than select family members.
  • He would promise to punish the deviants.
  • He's talking a lot about how he brings greatness to his country (or lets mouthpieces do so for him).
  • He would be a nobody without inheriting stuff from his father.
  • He's a sociopath.
  • He's a serial liar.
  • He's issuing threats very often.
  • He's an attention whore.
  • His accomplishments are propaganda lies - all of them.
  • He would promise a proper border protection - with strong fences, landmines and military personnel ready to shoot at intruders.
  • He doesn't believe in any god or goddess.
  • He's exploiting ideological preparation of the country for own political gain.
  • He's in favour of the death sentence, even for innocents.
  • He loves holding events where citizens subjects cheer him.
  • He's never shown any capability of intelligent discussion of any topic.
  • He wants to live in a gilded palace.
  • The economic well-being of fellow countrymen doesn't interest him.
  • His party and country shall follow the leader principle.
  • He pretends to be a strong leader, but he's terribly fearful and a pussy.
  • He's in favour of torture and abuse of prisoners.
  • His foreign policy makes him hated all over the world.
  • He's a laughingstock.

We already know that this is an offer that yields 47% of the popular vote in a U.S. presidential election.

I suppose we Europeans should wake up and realise that large demographics of allied countries have left our civilization. It's not just the Russians who are uncivilized. All three serial aggressor countries are at least 1/4th uncivilized.


related:

/2019/12/lets-open-our-eyes-to-ugly-reality-as.html

also related:


S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2023/11/19

On people going nuts and supporting Hamas

.

We've seen some strange behaviour by some people in the past weeks. Some people who were famous for something (often advocacy) began to side not just with Palestinians/Arabs, but even with Hamas.

It reminded me of an old blog post of mine:

/2016/04/thinking-on-military-affairs-and-going.html

I think you need to be a certain kind of person to dare leave the conventional consensus and be an outspoken champion for a change of the status quo. This readiness to turn against the mainstream doesn't necessarily correlate with great judgment, of course.

All those gold bugs are plain idiots when it comes to economics and monetary policy in particular, for example. They get every single it 180° wrong and don't care that all the evidence is against them. Still, they are people who dare to turn against the mainstream opinion on money.

So people may have become famous for some advocacy against the mainstream position, and maybe they were right on that one - but that doesn't mean their opinion is a smart one on another topic that they chose to become outspoken about.

Just as famous businessmen are usually delusional when they think they can give good economic policy advice.

Yes, I'm self-aware that I wade into many different topics and am greatly at risk of being wrong in one or another. See this about that.


S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2023/07/10

Collectivist attitudes as national security threats

.

Turkey is making demands for a Swedish accession to the North Atlantic Treaty.

I've seen very negative opinions about this. It's understandable that people oppose this Turkish decision, but Turkey is a sovereign country. It can refuse to ratify a treaty at will, without giving a reason. That's not unreliably, that's not irresponsible, that's not evil, that's not in any way indicative of being a bad treaty partner. It's a sovereign privilege of Turkey to make its own decisions.

Some of the criticism seemed to go beyond mere displeasure. I perceived hints of an attitude behind the criticism; some people are applying a collectivist mindset in which Turkey has to do what the crowd wants instead of making its own decisions.

That's an attack on the Turkish sovereignty, and a systemic one that needs to be opposed for the sake of the sovereignty of other NATO members. It reminds me a bit of the hatemongering against those countries which did not follow the Neocon lie-based warmongering against Iraq in 2002/2003 (especially France). This shows how potentially harmful and evil such a collectivist attitude can be.

Moreover, the EU appears to be built on the ideology that doing things together is always better than doing them nationally, and thus appears to be especially prone to similar collectivist attitude and pressuring. There's in my opinion great potential for harm in this, and I consider these collectivist attitudes to be a kind of national security threats.

 

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2023/03/18

Un-German behaviour

.
The Americans have that derogatory word "un-American" to describe that something done by certain Americans is (supposedly) very untypical and unworthy. The literal equivalent "undeutsch" is not nearly comparable, so I stay in English and call the behaviour that I'm going to call out "un-German".

There's political behaviour in the topic of German defence policy that's so strongly un-German that it deserves to be called out.

You may now think of the far right's and far left's eerie Putin and Russia fandom, but that's not what I'm going after this time. It's true that our far right appears to be even more "vaterlandslos" (un patriotic, literally 'without fahterland', a derogatory term usually used against socialists in Germany) than the far left, despite their opposite self-image, but that may be covered another time in its full ugliness.

The REALLY un-German behaviour violates something very central to the German way of life.

- - - - -

There's a comical view / caricature of Germans as people who are zealous about "wörk! wörk! wörk!", and this could not be farther from the truth. We are passionately lazy, well almost all of us. Very few of us are pitiful workaholics indeed. The ordinary German is very lazy. This laziness drove us to value efficiency very, very highly. We despise wasting time, we despise wasting work, we despise wasting materials. We despise that someone wastes our time by being late to meet us. Simply put, we despise the waste of resources. The wasteful and embarrassing large-scale infrastructure projects of "Stuttgart 21" and "BER" were incredibly shameful and un-German, and accordingly received much hate and ridicule.

Now have a look at people with (often even non-professional) interest in defence policy: The dominant opinion is that we need to spend more on the Bundeswehr. Supposedly, we underfunded it and need more, more, more. These people appear to seek an emotional satisfaction from feeling that the national armed forces are powerful, regardless of whether there's excess power and thus excess spending (waste of resources).

The current military spending of about € 50 billion per year is supposedly not enough, even though Ukraine seems undefeatable to Russia (the only significant threat to NATO in Europe) after never spending even only € 10 billion on an annual military budget and receiving material assistance much smaller than € 50 billion.

An ordinary German should inevitably come to the conclusion that we should spend LESS, not more, after having a close look at the issue. Hardly anyone does look closely, and those who do seem to be thoroughly un-German and irrational because of a pro-military emotional bias.

The vested interests of armed bureaucracy (especially the professional officer corps, which I simply like to blame for many ailments) and arms industry are pushing for more spending, and that's absolutely no-brainer ordinary and to be expected. More military spending isn't a waste of resources to them; they are obvious net beneficiaries of increased military spending.

The un-Germanness of others who comment on defence policy and of our politicians on the other hand is extremely repugnant. They deserve no better than the shamed managers of Stuttgart 21 and BER.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2022/12/31

Ideological dead ends

.

There are certain ideological dead ends that are plaguing the Western World, albeit with very varying degrees among its countries.

For example, some people seriously believe that a bunch of cells equals a human being and an abortion is thus homicide (or "murder").

 

So once you've convinced yourself of this, you see a gazillion of "murders" happening in your country every year. Certainly, there's nothing more important than ending that, and voilà, you've become a single-issue voter. A useful idiot who is going to support the party that more or less seriously represents your position on this single issue, but its heart is really with giving rich people tax breaks and allowing corporations to poison the environment and everyone (and rip everyone off).

Still, at this point nothing trumps this single issue to you and you're locked into that ideological dead end.

And then there are people who have convinced themselves that the opposing party is riddled by paedophiles, sells children's organs, well, maybe they're satanists. Oh yes, and their most prominent politicians are super villains. So villainous indeed that no amount of investigations over many years can uncover a single criminal act of theirs.

At this point it doesn't matter how many paedophilia scandals your own party has, or that investigations of the politicians whom you hate are fruitless. You refuse to be ruled over by paedophiles and their league of child-eating super-villains! It doesn't matter to you what the other (your preferred) party does regarding the quality of life and security of yourself, your family, your children, your neighbours. it just doesn't matter. You refuse to be ruled over by paedophiles! Paedophiles cannot possibly legitimately win an election, ever! It doesn't matter whether they were declared winners of an election even by office-holders of your own party. Any story about how they allegedly cheated in the election has to be true, obviously. Moreover, accusations of such election fraud are not just accusations, they're evidence! They have to be true, no more evidence needed. Doesn't matter how many courts dismiss lawsuits about the election, those judges are probably lizards or paedos.

And of course, fact checkers are propagandists when they say something you don't like (but you send your peer group their fact checks if you like the result!). 

Some people are even serious about the "lizard people control the world" thing, or similar ideas.

All reasonable arguments against your position become weightless once you've convinced yourself of such things. There's no reason to listen to paedos, lizards, baby-murderers. You're smart, you're standing against the puppetmasters! Including against those puppetmasters who beg you to not vote against your own family's economic interests for once!

You've got your news source, and those news sources informed you that all other news sources are run by lizards, or something. Don't trust them!

- - - - -

Bullshit accumulates, and so far biology is the only really effective way of cleaning it up. It can accumulate to the point of poisoning a major party. "First past the post" election systems favour two-party systems (though the British definitely broke that old wisdom a bit up), and having one of only two relevant parties poisoned is a national tragedy. It's even worse if your constitution has the defect that different institutions can block each other very often and paralyse the country (it doesn't matter whether the country as a whole has put lipstick on the pig and pretends that such blockades are a feature, not a bug).

- - - - -

Now maybe you're a right winger and think that I've once again bashed right wingers. That should give you pause to THINK how the heck you think that such outlandish behaviour could be descriptive of your tribe.

 

Besides, I bash left wingers as well. There's just a huge difference between the real world consequences of left wing idiocy and right wing idiocy now that left wing parties don't push for planning economies any more and don't party with Stalin any more. (That's kinda the fashion in the right wing these days.)

One example; I was enticed to think that a lot of the trans stuff is bollocks and legislation should point at a certain way. Then I learned that much of that stuff was already settled law in Germany since 1981, with important addition by constitutional court decision in 2011. It was enlightening to me. Absolutely none of these rules have ever affected me, my family, friends nor did I ever notice anyone being affected. All of this controversy was entirely irrelevant to practical life as far as I can tell. Meanwhile, as an economist, I can tell that certain other policies make the difference between working poor and middle class for people whom I know. In fact, the pendulum is stuck at "working poor" for them. The whole trans bollocks is but a distraction from what matters for real. Thus I mock people who get exasperated about who gets to use which restroom.

I heard the siren's call clear and loud and I sailed on.

I wish more people could avoid getting stuck in ideological dead ends and would be able to focus on what matters for real. That would be a nice new year's resolution.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

 

P.S.: My New Year's resolution is to be less lazy, both privately (working out) and on the job.

.

2022/10/15

Defence policy layers


Defence policy (in the sense of providing security to your own nation against blockade/bombing/invasion, not in the sense of quasi-imperialistic meddling) can be separated into layers.

Here's an example:

  1. Foreign policy to create a safer world (by sanctioning aggressions, for example)
  2. Abstaining from starting or needlessly joining a war
  3. Forming or joining collective security treaties (defensive alliances)
  4. Deter aggressors
  5. Be able to defeat aggressors if deterrence fails
  6. Limit damage incurred in case of war

(Any blogger with a bit of visual design skill would now use one of those onion layer graphics to illustrate the concept.)

I'm fine with layers 1...5 and think that they were somewhat neglected.

#1 Hypocrisy kept us from sanctioning aggressions and microaggressions committed by friendly countries

#2 We needlessly joined the Afghanistan War, and needlessly send troops into many other countries that are irrelevant to our security.

#3 We are in NATO, but fail to emphasise the defensive nature of NATO (see Kosovo Air War 1999 and the frequent tolerated loudmouthing by NATO general secretaries)

#4 This works for NATO almost without effort, as there's no aggressor capable of taking even only on a fourth of our conventional forces without using nuclear warheads.

#5 See #4

- - - - -

So, what's my issue with #6?

I think #6 is cost-inefficient. It's extremely unlikely that #1...#4 fail to keep us in peace. Resources spent on #6 are better-spent on #1 (sanctioning aggressors at some economic cost to yourself) and #4 (deterring war in the first place, instead of trying to make it less horrible).

- - - - -

This blog post was triggered by news about political efforts for a missile defence in Central and Eastern Europe. That would be an extremely expensive endeavour, and by now we know that Russia has a) largely depleted its missile stocks and b) is too dumb to cause much damage with missiles.

Moreover, an aggressor would be tempted to launch many missiles with a strategic surprise, which means that such a defence system would be surprised and thus likely fail to live up to expectations.

To establish a very large area defence against cruise missiles (supersonic or stealthy) AND (quasi-)ballistic PGMs (different from cruise missiles by carrying the oxidiser for the propulsion rather than breathing air) AND hypersonic missiles (high & very fast-flying, typically air-breathing) and to stay ahead of threat munitions with all three defences would be extremely expensive. To just buy some American missiles and radars would not live up to expectations.

We need such strategic missile defences neither to deter nor to defeat. This is overreach, overspending, primitive and poorly thought-out feeding of arms industry big business.

It's yet again a primitive low effort thinking reaction, just as the primitive EUR 100 billion boost with which politicians who were too incompetent to do their job want to calm their security policy conscience in Germany.


S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2022/08/27

IT security for real

.

Imagine your country's economy can be switched off by another country. Further imagine that also much of private life can be switched off by another country. Let's say that other country has half the voters flirting with fascism. Would you feel that this is an existential threat to your country and its sovereignty?

Well, we're de facto living this nightmare already.

- - - - -

Every autoupdater for software is technically a backdoor through which the software company can change software on your computer.

Every operating system with an autoupdater function (hidden or overt) can take over the entire computer with ease, unstoppable by all security features. The same applies to server software.

Example: Microsoft could - compelled by the U.S. government or on its own - switch off the economy of Europe with malicious non-optional updates for the Windows operating system and the Windows server operating system. The latter could even erase most backup data. Operating systems can also permanently damage the computer hardware, turning a data loss into a catastrophic nationwide loss of computers.

I consider this an unacceptable vulnerability for government and economy, and very undesirable for the private sector.


To increase the robustness of a nation against such an attack is simple; move from trusted software to trustworthy software.

It would be easy to mandate that no federal government institution is permitted to purchase or install software that's not on a whitelist without a temporary waiver by a properly staffed and competent agency. The whitelisted software would all be certain open source software. Open source (source code visible to the public) alone is not good enough. You also need proper audits of the open source code, timely audits for patches, a regime how to handle extremely urgent hotfix patches and the audited and later not manipulated source code either has to be compiled directly or the installation-ready version has to be available from a secure and trustworthy source. For-profit software providers (this is feasible with open source software in some ways) would have to pay for the thorough security audits. This would incentivise them to create lean code (for cheaper audits), and lean code can more easily be kept safe than bloated code anyway.

This would effectively lead to offices running Linux and OpenOffice rather than MS Windows and MS Office. Both are available for free and would even save the government much money.

This IT security regime could diffuse to state governments and be extended (with enforcement) to selected businesses such as hospitals, infrastructure providers and arms industry. Further incentives to harden the economy against catastrophic IT sabotage could be non-mandatory and still effective, such as making companies liable in court for damages caused to others by their non-secure IT. This also includes liability for damages when you use outdated software commercially.

The multinational level (EU) can go even further, and force suppliers of software that runs on non-secure operating systems to offer a no higher-priced and no worse version of their software for a whitelisted operating system. This would help private users to migrate to secure operating systems and secure applications.


Likewise, hardware may be extremely insecure. It's very difficult (=expensive) to look into the logic of chips. Yet chips and other electronics components (which may include chips without seeming to do so) are a severe security hazard themselves. They may have non-removable functions that compromise security.

To increase the robustness of a nation against such an attack is simple; move from trusted hardware to trustworthy hardware.

This is less practical than with software, but at least critical government departments (including the military) and critical businesses (especially infrastructure providers) could move to whitelisted hardware, for which design plans are known and which has been produced in a trusted place (for Germany this would be Germany, for Luxembourg this would be most EU countries) based on those design plans. It's acceptable to lag behind in performance by a few years, most government computers do so anyway. The trusted production facility would thus not require the newest chip manufacturing technology. Again, a 100% implementation of such a security regime would be impossible. There would again be a need for an authority that can and does give temporary waivers, but not too liberally so.

- - - - -

Next, encryption should be mandated for many activities, and this encryption should be based on a preferably quantum-proof encryption developed without interference by government spy agencies and their helpers. I mean encryption without intentional weaknesses. Furthermore, certain particularly sensitive communication (and archives) should feature one-time-pad encryption, which simply cannot be broken if done right. To establish such encryption standards and to enforce them through outlawing products that are in violation (with sellers forced to reimburse buyers fully), through inspections and fines and through legal liabilities would be feasible on the nation-state level.

- - - - -

The EU's talk about digital sovereignty is largely bollocks. They do so very little about security issues (and in fact multiple governments in the EU keep weakening security in order to be able to spy more easily themselves) that I have but one conclusion; their real motivation is not "digital sovereignty" or IT security, it's to deny the rent-seeking American software companies dozens of billions of turnover and profits. It's more of a transatlantic economic policy wrestling than an IT security initiative.

The EU might achieve all it wants to achieve with its "digital sovereignty" stuff and in the end MS could still switch the European economy off, and not just for a few days or weeks.

 

No invisible hand of markets establishes satisfactory IT security. We would require decisive action by politicians, and this is very largely (the software & encryption facets) feasible on the national level.

 

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

2022/05/21

Very serious people

.
Paul Krugman promoted the phrase "Very Serious People" to describe people who showed a certain behaviour in regard to economics and fiscal policy. He took specifically aim at those who got much attention and were treated by the press as if they had great competence on fiscal policy, but in reality they were just following a pattern of claiming that terrible things would happen (mostly inflation, or collapse of social safety net) if the government did not cut programs that benefit the poor and middle class Americans.
The problem wasn't that such people held such opinions (though some of them were legislators), the problem was that the print and television news media simply pretended that theirs was an obviously correct opinion and treated them as if they were some wise men who had the conviction to say unpopular truths. Another problem was that the "Very Serious People" were wrong.

Simon Wren-Lewis promoted (or created) another, related, term in the UK; mediamacro. Somehow the British media (newspapers and BBC mostly) pretends that the economy works in certain ways, even though the state of economic research is completely different. Again, the media bias just happens to favour the pro-plutocracy, right wing stance over science.

- - - - -

I suppose there's a similar bias problem in regard to defence and security policy, and in fact this may already have been the origin of "Very serious people".
 
Outright war porn and jingoism aside, why is it that the news media appears to associate only one move with solving problems in the military; bigger budgets? I have seen dozens if not hundreds of articles pretending so, not once -not even in the wake of scandals- did I see the suggestion that maybe firing and replacing people or changing upper management culture might be a solution. Significant structural changes of armed forces were rarely promoted by the news media and public commentary as well. The few examples that I remember were all about making the armed forces more "expeditionary" - more useful for playing great power games on distant continents (and thus less useful for deterrence & defence for the national benefit).
Similarly, the deployment of armed forces appears to be a standard, unimaginative, concept associated with solving problems abroad.
 
- - - - -
 
I wonder why, for both spending more nor deploying troops abroad have abysmal success records.
To spend more usually doesn't change problems, it just increases the sizes of armed forces. Training quality issues, tiny spare parts inventories and small munition stocks relative to force sizes, poor equipment choices, recruiting and retention issues and poor doctrine remain unaffected by budget growth.
The deployment of troops into conflict areas almost never solves a conflict, and often even fails to at least freeze it. A whole generation of news media people gained experience on the job while observing that the Afghanistan War solved jack shit (and there were loud voices by well-informed people that it was doomed to fail already around 2008). Still, the impressively unimaginative news media people keep talking of troops deployment at the first hint of some crisis abroad that involves armed forces.
 
- - - - -
 
I understand that certain circles have standard answers about the reasons why. For-profit corporations controlling the media, influence by arms industry et cetera. There are also full-blown nutjob answers, of course.
I don't think that's the problem. 
 
My suspicion is that sociological and psychological research needs to be undertaken to understand where this bias comes from, and how to compensate for it or remove it. Parts of the problem are certainly ignorance and laziness: People presume that a certain belief is true, and fail to test that belief with a little research about the real world and its history.
 
I'm also positive that limitations of the very model of news media play into this: The typical news media journalist is a universal dilettante. He's horribly incompetent on all topics, and thus only capable of the most obvious and primitive conclusions. There are a couple journalists with great accumulated expertise on certain topics, but a universal dilettante editor-in-chief calling in a military-specialised journalist to report on say, the Ukraine crisis, is already the aforementioned bias at work. News media people also sometimes interview different experts, such as foreign relations experts, political science experts - but then the interviews are unlike other interviews. Such experts actually answer the questions (politicians don't, they "answer" whatever they meant to say anyway), and the questions by the universal dilettante interviewer are already biased.

In all fairness I should mention that I am aware that news media people also pretend that economic sanctions have magic powers. Economic sanctions are being treated as a conjoined twin to military deployments abroad when the perceived troublemaker is a government. That's unimaginative as well, albeit I agree that such sanctions are sometimes legitimate and appropriate.


S O
 
P.S.: I wrote this briefly before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and deemed this draft ill-timed, pushed it forward several months, but apparently I also did hit the 'publish' button at some point. It wasn't really meant to go live, but here it is, and I have nothing better ready for this Saturday, so I leave it published.
.

2022/03/04

Exposed delusions

.

The Russian government influenced the right wing in the West for years, if not decades. Russia was presented as a beacon of civilisation against the gays, against anti-racists, against anything "soft", against feminism. Putin published a photo of him riding a horse half-naked and the right wingers of the West immediately sprung into action and photoshopped their hero from a horse onto a brown bear (multiple times).

This adoration went far and was much newer than the bit of far left sympathy for Russia that went back to the Cold War.

(Far) right wingers just love(d?) Putin et al, for they were bullying all the people that right wingers love to bully and talk shit about. Gays, minorities, women, effeminate men.

The grim-looking Russian minister of defence was immediately believed to be a much better choice than some Western female ministers of defence, as if whether there's something dangling on your chest or between the legs was an indicator for how well you can (and want to!) tame and steer the selfish beast that is the military bureaucracy.

Now how well did that work out? 

I told you guys, that Russian minister of defence is no beacon of competence at all just because he can look grim, he's rather part of a corrupt clique.

Russia has a shitty and uncompetitive economy (1)(2) that's unable to invent, design, develop, bring to market many new manufactured products or services. All it does (kinda) well is exploit natural resources, living off substance. The widespread corruption allows oligarchs to crush innovative competition with help of corrupt bureaucracies and courts, and basically steal upcoming businesses by making "irresistible" offers. The entire economic system discourages what a modern prospering economy requires.

 

Now it's become obvious that Russia is an antagonist to the West and Western values. It doesn't just attack some brown people and commits war crimes against them (which would not have irritated far right wingers the slightest bit), it does so against blue-eyed, blonde Christian people who fight admirably for their freedom.

Putin wasn't the only authoritarian who easily captured the imagination and followership of Western (far) right wingers. The obvious lying moron, a fat lard who would rather order a golf cart than to walk 400 metres and who usually only talked gibberish, was able to pull of the very same thing. That fat lard was photoshopped to ride a lion, and a very popular photoshop added his head onto Rambo's 1980's bodybuilder body, in total defiance of the obvious obesity.

They followed him because he hated, insulted, denounced, bullied the very same people whom they hate; mostly brown foreigners, brown people at home, women who are not totally submissive to men. He also simplified the complicated world to the level of 10 to 12 year olds (which reflects his knowledge about economy, geography, foreign policy and how to hire competent people).

 

What about the far right wing's bashing of feminism, the bashing of effeminate men, the bashing of Western culture as too soft and worthless for the defence of the country in hard times?

It proved to be yet more bullshit, designed to make the right wingers feel better about themselves (superior to others, especially  in their own society). 

That's a typical symptom of how people who don't feel successful or useful. Instead of putting in the effort to become so they choose to ensure that others are lower on the social ladder, and then they kick everyone who's below on the social ladder to keep them below.

An anecdote about this is how a father and little son watched a KKK march and the father told the son to ignore the white cowls and look at the shoes instead - and they were poor men's shoes. Those KKK marchers wanted to keep the negroes down because they were fearful that else they might end up being at the bottom of society.

 

Meanwhile, said (far) right wingers are whining about being expected to get two tiny needle jabs and to wear some surgical mask over mouth and nose when among foreigners to fight off a pandemic that killed 124k people in Germany despite mostly unheard-of countermeasures and would have killed hundreds of thousands more if left unchecked. 

They're strong, manly protectors of their society ("wolves"/"sheep") in their minds, but in reality they're selfish, whining, bullying, unpatriotic, hateful and pitiful people. Not one actual solution to actual problems came from their corner of the German society. The whole German right wing (not just looking at the far right) didn't produce a single solution to any major problem during the last 27 years.

It's all whining and hating by the far right and the right wing as a whole only fighting against efforts to do something about problems such as the push for renewable energies. They're useless pussies.

They're failing to cope with a society that's not simplistic and static. A society that requires knowledge and intelligent thought to recognise actual problems and challenges and requires the same to find or recognise solutions.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

P.S.: To be fair, Ukraine has a very racist and anti-gay society. I very much doubt that this is a necessary or important ingredient for the readiness to fight an invader, though.

.

2022/01/29

Numbers are hard

Numbers are hard, and randomly very scary or not scary at all to many people.

A long time ago I was paid to tutor a pupil who had difficulty with math. Those difficulties could be summarised as 'he stopped understanding math by grade 5 and doesn't take the concept of math seriously'. By bad luck one of the next chapters to tutor was set theory. Neither the boy nor his mother had any idea what set theory could possibly be good for -it's not even calculation- and he took it even less seriously. It was also nigh-impossible to justify some more hours to make him understand the chapter. Learning and understanding set theory is an almost indispensable step towards not boing a bullshit-blathering idiot as an adult.

 

Set theory teaches to sort thoughts and to keep apart what doesn't belong together.

Fast forward to our time, it has become painfully obvious that most humans simply cannot understand exponential functions, specifically exponential growth. Math at school didn't educate them. I looked at Covid figures in March 2020 and concluded it's going to be a huge thing while it was still tiny. I had no means of including the effects of countermeasures and whatever else leads to plague waveforms. I had the official daily case figures in a spreadsheet and told the standard software to extrapolate with an exponential function because I understood that my brain alone could not handle exponential growth and I also understood that exponential growth is a thing and the spread of a virus can be near-exponential. I ended up calculating the first million cases in Germany for a much-too early date, but I was far from failing to understand how an unchecked wave would propagate before I saw any politician showing such understanding. Almost two years later, many people are way beyond just not understanding exponential growth; about a tenth to a fifth of the population appears to have performed a 10 m high dive into total bullshit, welcoming the bullshit, becoming one with the bullshit.

'Numbers are hard' was also at work in regard to military (im-)balance in Europe. I'm the kind of guy who looks into things like IISS "Military Balance" yearbook or studies and then actually compares the figures before trying to (in a fuzzy way) take into account the not really known qualitative differences and the geographic divides.

/2014/01/european-and-russian-military-capability.html

/2015/10/military-im-balance-in-europe.html

I do hardly ever see anything of this kind in any discussion or commentary. The usual opinion appears to pretend that the Russian army is the Red Army of 1989 with some new gear while European NATO hardly has any armed forces. Military think tank types tend to avoid giving written evidence of such thinking, but their written and published conclusions are often very much compatible with such a view.

Nowadays I see press reports (now I'm not talking about subject matter experts) about threatening Russian "force concentrations" on Ukraine's border. Yet whenever they become more specific such as stating "100,000 army troops" or a map, I cannot see any Russian army concentration on the Ukraine's borders AT ALL.

The supposed Russian army forces concentrations are outnumbered by the Ukrainian army (and the Russian troops and Russian proxy troops in Donbass don't change this picture to a clear Russian numerical superiority). Those supposed Russian army concentrations are also dispersed in great depth and width, but reading the scale on maps is hard, I guess. What do these press people suppose where the Russian army should have its troops, in Siberia? Does nobody remember how awfully close to the Iron Curtain the NATO had its forces throughout the Cold War?

another illustration: nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/07/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html

The total strength of the Russian Army in the Western and Southern Military Districts minus what's in the Kaliningrad Oblast exclave and what's indispensable near St. Petersburg and Moscow is still likely too much to bite for the Ukrainian Army, but that's not news. It's always been this way.
 
The press supposes we (or the Ukrainians) should be scared of "100,000 !!!!" Russians. Well, I'm not easily scared (I don't like to lean against large windows or lean over balconies and that's it), and I refuse to be scared by the alarmist news about the Russian army dispositions. The unusual thing is to move the troops out of their mildly comfortable barracks in wintertime and the really frustrating threat o the Ukraine is the vastly superior Russian air power. The actual quantity of boots on the ground near the Ukrainian border could be considered consistent with Russia positioning its troops for defence (I'm not saying this is the purpose).

So once again, a public too dumb or too lazy to pay attention to numbers and fairly simple calculations appears to misunderstand reality grossly.


.

2022/01/15

Mayor Vaugh at the helm

.
The biggest lesson from this plague is that the Western world -and much of the rest of the world- is getting governed by Mayor Larry Vaughn from "Jaws".
 

The behaviour patterns were identical in many countries and states; no decisiveness, pandering to popular opinion, fixation on superficialities, prioritisation of economic interests over citizens' lives, preferring any advice that suits the own preferences, not following public policy rules in private life ... and staying in power (or being replaced by people who turn out to be just the same).

Even worse; supposed competence centres showed that technocracy is no superior alternative, either. Even the dedicated anti-plague agencies of wealthy large countries were plagued by poor decisionmaking, if not showing appalling and unforgivable incompetence (such as the near-total statistics-analphabetic German RKI). They shone mostly when compared to the outright idiocy of dangerous idiots.

I spent more than a decade blasting away at the shortcomings of the establishment of government agencies and politicians in the field of military affairs and to some extent also foreign policy. The pandemic confirms that the systemic problem is more widespread, my suspicion is that all discontinuous government tasks are affected by the same systemic problems as in military policy. A military prepares for an event war that (hopefully) only happens once every couple decades or centuries, our supposed plague experts only got tested after a 100-year break (one could also say they failed during both influenza epidemics of the 60's and 70's). Natural disaster responses are also prone to display disappointing performances, albeit this is most commonly attributable to insufficient budgeting before the disaster.

Sadly, this seemingly systemic proneness to failure in uncommon, rare challenges may also be an important factor behind the apparent inability to execute foreign policy strategy and geostrategy. The politicians and top bureaucrats may even be so aware of the proneness to disappointing behaviour that they avoid accepting unusual challenges.

In other words; predictable incompetence at execution may be the reason for the timidity and inactivity regarding strategy.
 
It doesn't help that Europeans often elected conservatives into power, who block decisive action by definition and spent decades to built institutions (including the EU) that by design prove stabilising, perpetuating, resistant to changes of course.This is beneficial in regard to some issues and harmful in others.


How could we possibly expect solutions to well-known problems or even some coherent, sensible grand strategy from Mayor Vaughn?

 
P.S.: Sadly, the political press also failed spectacularly. One detail of this is that they criticised politicians for wrong things. I saw severe criticism about inefficiencies and mistakes made in hurried, frantic mas purchases. Those mistakes (not some related profiteering) were completely excusable IMO. The lack of comparably energetic action on other issues is what should have been criticised. Somehow the press finds it much more entertaining to criticise action than to criticise inaction. This may be related to the numbing success of actual conservatives.
.