Public debt and final spurt arms races

.

Public debts have been discussed a lot in recent years, and public debt no doubt has a substantial influence on a nation's ability to compete in an arms race.

I think specifically of the two-year arms races which happened prior to the World Wars, not the extended ones like the Cold War, the dreadnought race or France's army efforts in the 1880's to 1900's.

There is a substantial difference between public debt and public debt, though - and I'd like to waste some lines on it.

One kind of public debt - such as in Germany - is essentially the manifested niceness of the government in its relations with the rich. The government asks the rich politely to buy bonds, instead of harshly telling them to pay high taxes or else. 

This kind of debt raises some doubts about whether the complex of motivations in the country would withstand a higher taxation, but it does not cast doubt on a country's ability to afford its public spending in the medium term, possibly even long term.

The other kind of public debt happens in countries with a trade balance deficit (goods and services). The model of a developing country explains this best. Let's assume a developing country wants to buy a dam and hydro powerplant. It may be able to build the dam on its own, but it cannot build the powerplant, so it seeks foreign credit and buys it from abroad. No amount of taxing the rich would have helped here if the country has a trade balance deficit. Taking foreign currency from the own people (typically the rich, for that's where most wealth is) would simply have meant that other imports would be curbed and to a lesser degree non-government entities and citizens would have taken the foreign credit instead.

Additionally, the debt would be in foreign currency as the foreign corporation would not accept banana republic dollars, so the central bank cannot simply inflate the debt away with the (imported) money press (which is still possible even with inflation-indexed bonds).

The difference between both kinds of public debt is huge in my opinion.

The former merely means that the government has become complacent and delayed domestic conflicts about the distribution of burdens. This kind of debt does not indicate a very much weakened ability to compete in a final spurt arms race.

Public debt coupled with trade balance deficits is different. It shows the the country is living beyond its means, apparently including the government. It would require drastic steps including conscription -possibly even of workers- to overcome this and participate in a final spurt arms race. Either way, such a country would be disadvantaged in the arms race.

Luckily, we are in an extremely imbalanced world situation with one bloc being ridiculously overpowered in terms of fiscal power that final spurt arms races are only likely in a regional context.

S O

This blog post is supposed to clarify and correct earlier ones:

2011-08 Public debt and the military

2009-07 Our fiscal policy is scary

.

The EW battle as the main, decisive battle in modern-on-modern warfare

.

Back in World War Two, the main battlefield in night bombing /night interception and the Second Battle of the Atlantic wasn't about guns or manoeuvres, but about radio and radar technologies. This was followed by the horrible fuel shortage in Germany beginning in summer of '44 (and more so for the aviation gas-guzzling night fighters than for the diesel fuel-guzzling subs).

Accounts of these "battles" focus a lot on radio and radar, and rightly so. The pendulum swung always with radio and radar breakthroughs back then, not with the introduction of better weapons, ammunitions, airframes or ship hulls.

Technology breakthroughs tend to filter from naval to air war, and finally to ground war. Naval warfare often comes first because bulky, heavy and expensive components are no real problem on ships. The components already need to be lightweight and compact for use on aircraft and finally they also need to be cheap for use in ground warfare.

It's thus possible to follow certain technologies from naval to aerial to ground applications. There are exceptions, of course.

The intense high frequency warfare has found its way into the ground forces long ago. The multitude of radars and radios was already impressive back in the 50's, and there are ever more electronic tools being added to the ground forces. Some of them aren't widely known, such as hand-emplaced or even artillery-delivered radio jammers which may collapse a battalion's radio net just as it enters contact with the enemy.

The increasing data processing ability appears to handle the complexity of terrain features ever better, and by now it seems as if the most pressing challenge in ground warfare between two modern ground forces would be the radio and sensor conflict. Just the same as with W2 subs and night fighters.

Here's an example (related: I posted on Eerie radar technology earlier):

I-Master radar - lightweight, compact

Just look at the "Coherent Change Detection" thing, which is more than the mere SAR and GMTI modes. I knew about it for a while, but didn't figure out the correct terminology until recently.

This kind of sensor and data processing capability does - in my opinion - prove the dominant influence of sensors on modern-on-modern ground warfare. 

This doesn't mean that all these sensors are going to make hiding impossible. Even millions of bird-sized drones would not do so. Instead, this shows the dominant importance of countering such sensors.

A modern-on-obsolete conflict of the future would probably look quite like Afghanistan; the opposition being unable to pull off much given the technological and organisation superiority of the modern force. The conflict would thus be limited to hiding and the least risky actions (mines, assaults on non-modern proxies) and then mostly where the modern force is stretched too thin.

It's basically like a firing range. 

Modern-on-modern conflict could and in my opinion WOULD look very differently. The conflict would first and foremost be about countering sensors and communications. Tanks, guns - even logistics - would become onlookers, with ground troops probably waiting till the electronic warfare (EW) battle was decided.

An alternative would be that the electronic warfare-inferior modern forces might try to rush towards a more favourable decision by trying to saturate and seek decisive physical combat as soon as possible.

This is just once more a hint that the delaying action is probably the most important and most interesting tactical action (since the EW-superior force would try to avoid an early decision in physical combat since it expects to have better conditions once it won the EW battle).

Finally, EW strengths tend to disappear over time as the enemy adapts with countermeasures. The EW battle might not follow the example of for example air warfare (air superiority, DEAD) where the superior force attempts to decimate and diminish the inferior force's capability to resist as a prelude to knocking it out. Instead, it might rather be about exploiting the advantage as long as it lasts with concurrent "knock out" attempts against the hostile main force. The EW-superior force would in this scenario assume that its superiority isn't growing, but withering away over time.

It is most interesting and curious that so many extremely important sensor and communications platforms of the West don't appear to be built to withstand the EW-onslaught and countermeasures of a modern force. Stories about non-encrypted drone radio traffic, slow-moving drones and even blimps as sensor platforms and many more anecdotes point at 'us' preparing to bash obsolete forces, not 'us' preparing for a modern-on-modern conflict. Sadly, the former is not really defence, while the latter would is.

I propose to pay much more attention to countermeasures to new sensor and communications capabilities than to the capabilities themselves or the more physical aspects of land warfare such as arms, armour, vehicles and even logistics.

S O

.

S-300 as a major deterrence asset

.

The recent rumours about S-300 area defence surface-to air missiles of Russian design and manufacture reinforce my impression that this long-range and apparently respected air defence system has become one of the main deterrents against interventionist Western powers with nuclear weapons, the combination of friendly relations + oil wealth and 'allied' status being the others. Ballistic missiles and chemical weapons proved to possess a rather negative deterrence value.

The S-300 versions of 1984 and later (not the 1978 version) are apparently quite highly respected in part because they weren't yet demolished by a SEAD campaign, unlike the 1960's generation.

The nominal range is large enough to nominally out-range typical anti-radar missiles and to provide at least nominal missile range (not necessarily radar range) for coverage of large swaths of a country.

(The newer S-400 missile with its active radar guidance and and comparable ranges is actually more impressive - maybe it will play the deterrence role in the 2020's? Tactically, the longest ranged S-400 version and similar missiles (if they exist) are hugely interesting, for their range allows the participation of surface-to-air missiles in the offensive air superiority fight. The would also push back airborne early warning and control aircraft as well as long-range radar aircraft such as the E-8. Such 300+ kilometre aerial sensors would then be reduces in range to the forward line of own troops (if such a thing exists) rather than being able to support by looking deep into hostile territory.)

The dynamics regarding the S-300 appear to resemble the dynamics regarding nukes in part: There is a sense of urgency to strike before the deterrent is operational. This adds an actually intervention-/aggression-provoking element to this deterrent.

I think it's sad that such a largely defensive system achieved such a fame and importance. It doesn't reflect well on the West.

S O
.

A few link recommendations

.

plowshareforge.blogspot.de/2012/12/win-bar-bet.html

whynationsfail.com

chuckspinney.blogspot.de/2013/04/wanna-know-why-there-wont-be-peace.html

www.youtube.com/user/TheDoctrineman?feature=watch

walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/20/top_ten_warning_signs_of_liberal_imperialism

nextbigfuture.com/2013/05/russians-have-proven-land-invasion-of.html

blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/05/13/climate-and-conquest-how-did-genghis-khan-rise/

www.businessinsider.com/the-world-is-not-headed-for-disaster-2013-4

io9.com/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-lives-inside-t-493103044

.

Yes Minister - The Death List

.

"Yes, Minister" - a great British comedy from the 80's. 

I can't help you if you cannot spot how well it makes fun of the GWOT era

The more you look at the past, the more it becomes obvious that human and institutional shortcomings are not unique to certain humans and certain institutions, but rather shortcomings of the human mind in general. It just shows differently.

We are probably doomed to repeatedly prove our stupidity until our stupidity makes us let machines take over...

S O
.

Quick hint: Modern gliders

.

I mentioned it before in some comment, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to write a quick note as a blog psot as well:

Aviation enthusiasts keep reviving the idea of a return of the glider for cargo and airborne troops delivery. It's a cheap means of adding cargo capacity, allows for some stand-off on part of the pricey transport aircraft and it's kind of silent.

Well, it won't happen - because it already happened almost two decades ago.

The old gliders won't return, but the gliding approach has long since been revived with HAHO parachuting*, robotic cargo glide parachutes and even prototypes of robotic cargo tailless gliders. There is simply no need for the steel frame, wood and fabric construction of old any more.

A few links to examples I found in a very quick, very lazy search trying to rediscover what I remembered:

link 1

link 2

link 3a, 3b

link 4

link 5 

link 6

link 7

Very low altitude drops (500 ft) are also an old hat; wartime drops of small teams were even done at 150-200 ft as early as during the Vietnam War.

There's really next to nothing to be gained by a comeback of the early military gliders. To discuss a possible comeback may be entertaining to aviation enthusiasts, but it's pointless.

S O

*: There are even electronics-laden helmets to help HAHO parachutists to navigate to the landing zone over dozens of kilometres at night.

.

Some more about Turkey

.

Previous, related posts:
 

2008-08
Geostrategy: Most interesting country in the world

 
2009-03
Turkey and the EU

 
2012-10
Turkey and geostrategy- again

(This blog is old; even the 2008 post feels like yesteryear!)

Two additions to what I wrote about Turkey so far:

First, I edited this to the oldest of the three blog posts:

edit 2013-05: I should add that the Pan-Turkic ideology (a nationalist party got about 1/8 of the votes in the 2011 elections) could put Turkey into a rival position to Russia in regard to influence in Central Asia (Turkic languages there). The West's encroachment has been stopped in Belarus (as long as the dictatorship doesn't crumble) and Ukraine (where any national election can change the trajectory entirely). Russia would not exactly be happy to face a Turkish challenge on its southern flank.

 The mentioned Turkish nationalist party is this one.

The news people in Germany have decided to largely ignore Belarus, Ukraine, Transnistria or the Pan-Turkic nationalism. The occasional report about the dicatorship in Belarus or the domestic political struggles in Ukraine is always boring and it's much more likely for a German to learn that anything ridiculous happened in the U.S. or Australia than to learn anything about major developments in the Russian periphery. Balloon boy et al. The rare reports from the Ukraine are typically carried by the news people's ability to use a photo of the good looking blonde politician in their article.

As I see it, Russia has lots of long-term challenges and challengers in its periphery, and they will no doubt not give way easily, as they are very much interested in strategic depth.

Second, the Alawites story.

(c) NordNordWest and Supreme Deliciousness
(To mention the author is a copyright requirement,
but some authors of pics at wikipedia have outright ridiculous names.)

The Alawites are about to lose power in Syria, being a small minority and apparently unable to defeat the majority Sunni rebellion. Turkey's turn against the Assad regime - with which it previously had a 'good neighbour' foreign policy strategy - is also a turn against one of the minorities in Turkey. 

A move against a minority is often a turn towards more authoritarian/assertive and less cooperative grand strategy and political culture.

This could become a small piece of a decades-long shift towards a Sunni- and Turkic language-oriented policy and construction of a bloc in the Middle East and Central Asia. The plan to join the EU bloc is on ice, after all - and continued NATO membership doesn't really restrict the political freedom of action since (almost) nobody seems to pay attention to Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty anyway. Basically, they can conduct their foreign policy with whatever ambitions they like and still stay under NATO's protective umbrella.

S O
.

Lawson Command Control Cycle

.

Trick question: What is this?

Figure 1

You probably think this is some variation of Boyd's OODA loop.

That's at least what I expect you to think. Anyway, it's not. It is rather the Lawson Command-Control Cycle as described by Wayne D. Hughes Jr. in his book about naval tactics.

I was astonished I didn't bring this up before (there were no search hits for "Lawson" on this blog). The reason for the delay is probably that till today I cannot prove which was first - Lawson's or Boyd's. Lawson's is really old, from 1977.

Hughes claims that a Dr. Geoffrey Coyle established a similar paradigm and "Russians produced an equivalent C2 model as early as the 1960's" (1964)*.

Boyd's actual OODA Loop, according to the only sketch of it he ever showed**:

Hughes also illustrated Lawson's evolved model, from 1985 or earlier:

Figure 2

 (The graphics should enlarge to a readable size if you click on them.)

Interestingly, Hughes writes a lot about the extreme lethality of naval combat; similar to tank combat this is a lot about who gets to fire the first well-done salvo. The command control cycle in figure 2 as well as OODA, Russian and Coyle stuff have a very different interpretation if looked at from such an angle. Suddenly, it's not about doing your second action while the enemy still reacts to your first as it is in the typical OODA interpretation: It is rather about who is fastest in preparing the first well-done salvo. For the fight basically ends with that one, leaving only mopping up left to do. Well, that is how Hughes makes modern naval combat sound like.

Tank developers try to enable early detection of a hostile and to squeeze the entire engagement sequence till the first aimed shot including identification, communication, turret movement etc. into as few seconds as possible. Later on, tank platoon and company leaders attempt to exploit this hardware potential with training.

_________________

The semi-messianic stuff about Boyd including quasi-apostles etc. has always irritated me. I have not really found anything truly impressive thoughts of Boyd . He was certainly a great fighter pilot (about 5% are great, and the more experienced ones can exploit their aircraft fully). On the intellectual side, I stick to my suspicion that he was more a marketing and charisma genius than a great inventor - rather Steve Jobs-like.

There are some people on this world with the astonishing talent of building fame, career and often even wealth on the exploitation of only a handful of real ideas - and at times these aren't even theirs. It's a particularly visible phenomenon among politicians and managers.

Often times I've read or had an idea and thought; someone really talented would make a career out of promoting this. 

I really believe that this is how the world works; the really famous things aren't necessarily famous because they are outstanding, but because they were promoted well. One should take this into account when one delves into military or other theories.

S O


P.S.:

I was too lazy to set up the scanner, so you got some hand-crafted MS Word art here. That's why the graphics are so irregular. Don't blame Hughes.

*: Abchuck, V.G. et al. Vyendenue v. Teoriu Vyraborki Reshenii (Introduction to Decision Making Theory). Moscow: Voyenizdat, 1972 (revision of a work from 1964)

Ivanov, D.A., V.P. Savel'yev, and P.V.Shemanskiy. Osnovy Upraleniya Voyskami v Boyu (Fundamentals of Troop Control at the Tactical Level). Moscow: Voyenizdat. Translation, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offic, 1983 (original work from 1971)

**: According to Chet Richards.

.

Policy skeptics vs. defenders of policy execution

.

Does the U.S. Navy have more ballistic missile submarines than it needs? Dramatic reductions in deterrent patrols – but not submarines – suggest so.

(Hans M. Kristensen)

the reply:

We have the right number of SSBNs to provide our required sea-based deterrent. Some contend we can reduce our SSBN force and still meet requirements. This is not true.

The current force of 14 SSBNs is necessary to provide 10 operational SSBNs and support our national deterrence requirements.

(Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge)

Of course, Kristensen was thinking about the quantity the country needs, not the quantity mandated by the government. Unlike the high-ranking military bureaucrat, he was thinking of an actual need, not about meeting the policy. He questioned the policy.

(The British think four boats are enough, the French think four boats are enough, the Chinese have six and the Russians have eleven in a questionable readiness. Some people (claim to) have nightmares from the mere idea that some country far, far away could get a single basic fission device - without any sophisticated military delivery technology at all!)

- - - - -

This is one part of what's wrong in many military-related discussions. All too often, officials recite a policy as if it was an argument. It's not an argument - it's an outcome, and the quality thereof is usually the subject of the discussion. Ex ante policy qualifies as background information, not as an argument.

Some authoritarian minds don't get the idea that policy doesn't justify itself, but that's their deficit.

Such behaviour goes beyond bureaucratic self-preservation; I've seen it also in context of ridiculously stupid procurement programs until the day before their cancellation. The bureaucracy's best interest isn't necessarily served with such statements (albeit it seems to be the case in the submarines example). Sometimes the official is just recommending himself for a well-paid military contractor job for after his retirement, other times he is just that genuinely stupid - and there are many more reasons for such behaviour. I cannot trace such useless if not damaging behaviour to any single cause.

Officials who believe they can smack down policy critique by replying with a defence of the policy's execution seem to lack the intellectual curiosity to even understand that someone is questioning the policy and trying to think of an alternative. Well, either this or they use a strawman argument and are thus simply dishonest.

I suppose officials should simply shut up if they have nothing to bring to the table (which can happen if they don't know any real argument that's unclassified). It is after all not their job of executing policy that's typically the subject of the discussion, but the policy itself.

- - - - -

By the way; this all is quite similar to the typical conservative / bureaucrat remark of noting that things have been done in a specific way and should be done like it in the future, too. I remember one high-ranking officer of the Heer who preferred to refer to what's being taught at the Führungsakademie (officer academy) as what should be done. He was apparently not exactly a great thinker, running out of actual thoughts that quickly.

To refer to authority, policy, tradition or doctrine is no argument. It's merely a description. It is quite safe to predict that this fallacy will be repeated almost as long as there is mankind. The question is: Will their audience confuse a statement of a decision with an argument informing the decision, never learning the distinction?

S O

.

To know tactics, you must know weapons

.

The Battle of the Nile occurred near the end of the age of fighting sail. Nelson had little opportunity to adopt tactics to new material, as Napoleon did with mobile artillery and the great Panzer captains did with tanks. thus Nelson's achievement is even more remarkable: he adopted his tactics to a weapon system that in its essentials was centuries old, and with insight that has rarely if ever been equaled at sea. We may believe that his tactical mastery was achieved by a lifetime spent under way. Clausewitz thought that good strategy could come from the inspired novice but that effective tactics were the work of a lifetime. To know tactics, you must know weapons.

Wayne P. Hughes, "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat" 2nd ed. p.25-26

I don't see how Napoleon's artillery was that much different from earlier artillery (much of his arty was actually from the old Gribeauval system and decades old when he used it).

There are still a couple interesting thoughts in this short quote:

(1) There is probably room for tactical improvement left for things that were in use for centuries. Now that's an encouragement.

(2) Why is he such a Nelson fan? Judging by Hughes' own descriptions, all that Nelson did was he manoeuvred his forces such that his complete fleet was concentrated on a part of the hostile fleet, leaving the rest out of the decisive fight. The state of the naval art must have been horrible if that was outstanding. 

See Epaminondas, more than 2,000 years earlier. Every army leader who attacked an army during a river crossing (when many of the hostiles were on the other side and ineffective) pulled basically the same trick as Nelson, and this tactic is ancient as well.

(3) "To know tactics, you must know weapons." This one is frustrating, and I actually don't doubt its truth. It is frustrating especially as taxpayers need to pay for weapon systems when almost none of them can possibly understand their tactical use and thus their value.

This problem with insider knowledge is similar to the one with the hidden functions of very electronics-dependent weapon systems and new technologies in general. I pointed at something similar in January: "Naval and air warfare; the problem with technology assessment"

Luckily, I left my comfort zone and entered detailed modern tactics topics only rarely - and mostly so when poor practices were obvious. This year, the only real modern tactics blog post was "Avionics of doom", where I was quite careful ("could have"). I was probably less careful in earlier years.

To me, the 1970's are where the stuff is so very much historical that published sources offer a good picture about previously hidden details. Well, unless you're talking electronic warfare; the only good sources about EW are very general ones like the EW101 and EW102 books.

I suppose pondering outside one's comfort zone makes only much sense on the operational and strategy levels of warfare (yes, I think there is an operational level). Much tactics stuff is too much influenced by largely unknown tech stuff. At times I mention some device casually to someone who served 20 years in combat arms and even he didn't know about the really important device (which I knew only by chance). This happens especially with EW stuff.

S O
.