Those interested in the U.S.Army's Germanophilia of the 70's or some German officer's' anecdotes will find seven likely interesting documents a the "The Blaster" blog:
.
2014/07/15
2014/07/11
Cowardice meets arrogance in UK surveillance stitch up
.
For the British readers, and as a warning for others:
BoingBoing
The leadership of the major UK political parties are set to ram through a sweeping surveillance bill without debate or study. It's a perfect storm of cowardice and arrogance (...)
2014/07/08
Islamic [terror] threat is exaggerated by ‘oxygen of publicity,’ says former MI6 chief
.
Finally!
Just two example articles:
"ISIS threat has been exaggerated, says former MI6 chief: Sir Richard Dearlove thinks 'pathetic' Britons spreading messages on internet should be ignored"
Islamic threat is exaggerated by ‘oxygen of publicity,’ says former MI6 chief
I've been saying (and writing) that the errorism threat is exaggerated for years.
The people who alerted so much about the errorists weren't the though ones; they were the easily-scared chickens or worse, professional cynical fearmongers.
S O
.
2014/07/06
A guide for demanding a higher military budget
.
I'm tired of the insultingly low level in some contributions to 'security policy' debates. Again, minutes of my life were wasted by reading just another pointless text on how "interests" -> "sea" -> "ships" -> "win!" without any logical connections, merely pretending to make any sense.
Thus here's a beginner's guide for how to make a coherent, logical and waterproof argument for an increase in military spending:
Step 1
Identify something dissatisfying in the distant future in a scenario with the baseline budget. Past, present or near future issues don't matter, for budget increases take effect slowly.*
Step 2
Monetarise the issue. You cannot possibly make a logical, conclusive, uninterrupted case for more spending when you don't convert from "issue" to "currency" at some point.*
Step 3
Discount the issue using the long term government bond real interest rate as internal interest rate. Money in the far future isn't the same as money right now, after all.
Step 4
Get an idea for how the military could lessen the issue (by doing ...).* Put a price tag on it, discounted.*
Step 5
Execute an ethics check. Benefits from bullying are unethical, drop any such plans.
Step 6
Reason and justify by how much the change in military spending could lessen the future troubles.* We're not stupid enough** to fool ourselves into thinking it could be a 100% cure, right?
Step 7
Discount the extra military spending.
Step 8
Now you can compare the discounted reduction of troubles with the discounted extra expenses. Stop right here if the latter is higher.
Step 9
Identify alternative uses for the extra budget. Infrastructure investments, civilian foreign policy, education, disease prevention, crime fighting, whatever. Identify how much benefit could be gained* by the most promising alternative.
Step 10
Quantify the economic benefit from keeping the people in civilian jobs instead of hiring them as extra personnel for the military.* Discount this benefit.
Step 11
Compare the future benefits from more military spending with the most promising non-military alternative.
STFU about more military spending if it doesn't show a superiority over the most promising civilian opportunities.
Step 12
Now consider the damages done to society by government revenue.* This puts an extra 1-30% price tag on government spending; administrative expenses of revenue gathering, judicial expenditures, cost of tax advisers, monetarised damage from suboptimal behaviour of dodging taxes with otherwise inefficient exploitation of tax loopholes etc.
Step 13
Compare the pro-more military funding net benefit left over from Step 11 with the costs from step 12.
STFU about more military spending if the "more military spending" case doesn't prevail.
You may wonder why not compare the extra military budgeting with the least efficient civilian spending already in the budget and then possibly shift the resources. The reason is simple; you may argue for the wasteful spending's removal separately, for it has no justification independent on what you do with the military budget. And when you did so with all wasteful spendings, you would have no such wasteful spending as benchmark left.
This isn't how wannabe advisers do it, of course. The just like the idea of the military having this or that additionally. They don't make an uninterrupted, logical case for more. They just prefer more, from gut level.
The many uncertainties involved in these
steps prohibit a conclusive, uninterrupted case for a particular
proposal for more military spending. Only god-like knowledge could build such an uninterrupted case for it. Nobody who argues for more military spending can prove his/her point. It's impossible. They may fake to have a strong case, though. And that's why there are so many phonies, so many "much style, little substance" types involved in this, and why officials with supposed authority of being insiders can fake making a good case for more military spending so well.
And that's why they all talk and write nonsense when they pretend to have a strong case for more military spending.
S O
*: Uncertainties involved in here.
**: Huge uncertainty involved in here.
.
2014/07/04
On the current German drone debate
.
(This text was a hasty one, wasn't written well. Read it as a mere pointer at a single aspect of the debate only, please.)
There's now a discussion in Germany about whether to buy armed drones or not.
There's now a discussion in Germany about whether to buy armed drones or not.
This was to be expected, as I had noticed anecdotal evidence for a widespread aversion to armed drones caused by their use as assassination weapons and civilian deaths producers by the U.S.military and the CIA.
The people who are now oh-so exasperated about the drone thing aren't exactly strong on details.
Just a few examples;
(1) The Bundeswehr invested much money into the development of an autonomous attack (kamikaze) drone, and its introduction was prevented more by the end of the Cold War than by anything else: Taifun/TARES.
There was a budget for this development for years, yet seemingly none of those who now complain about ethical or other issues are remembered as having opposed this.
(2) There are already armed drones in use with the Bundeswehr. Some naval mine-hunting drones drop demolitions or explode themselves.
(3) What about artillery? A drone operator does at least see whom he kills or what (s)he destroys - few artillerymen ever do so.
(4) What about GBU-54? It's a marvellous piece of ammunition*; inertial navigation system, GPS, semi-active laser seeker - all attached to a good-sized bomb and to be dropped from 15,000+ ft altitude.
Germany imported it years ago without a public debate. The Typhoon pilot dropping this would look at a screen just as a drone pilot would. And don't get me started on Taurus...
(5) Naval warfare in general. Quite some separation of decision-maker and target in there, too. So why is there no ethical problem if this disassociation is supposedly such a problem with armed drones?
________________
That being said, the ministry of defence excuse that armed drones are necessary because of the fiduciary duty (~ don't expose men to risks if avoidable) is hardly a solid one. A Typhoon flying at 15,000 ft is safe in a war of occupation. A Reaper-like drone would not be of use in a real inter-state war. A Barracuda-like system might be survivable enough in a real inter-state war, but then the risks to 200 pilots are clearly overshadowed by the need for efficacy, as hundreds of thousands of troops and possibly sovereignty would be at stake.
I fear this is one of the many ill-guided anti-military fever attacks, similar to the silly campaign against small arms exports. They attempt to keep a Pandora's box closed that's not really closed any more, and has plenty substitutes anyway.
The whole military drones topic is a very mixed bag, and much could be said against the high endurance high altitude class which looks very much like an assassination- and occupation-only vehicle class to me. Some other drones make much sense.
Whatever anti-war energy is available should be directed better.
related:
S O
*: You could equip a combat aircraft with MICA IR and GBU-54 and would be
able to fly about 90% of missions with just these two munitions.
.
[Deutsch] Bezüglich der aktuellen Diskussion über bewaffnete Drohnen
.
Hier mal ein paar Beispiele:
(edit: Dieser Text war ein reltaiver Schnellschuss, ist nciht gut geschrieben. Bitte lest ihn als bloßen Hinweis auf einen Einzelaspekt der Debatte.)
Wir haben nun also eine Diskussion über die mögliche Beschaffung bewaffneter Drohnen.
Wir haben nun also eine Diskussion über die mögliche Beschaffung bewaffneter Drohnen.
Man konnte diese Debatte eigentlich schon erwarten; ich hatte schon einige anekdotenhafte Wahrnehmungen einer weitverbreiteten Aversion gegen bewaffnete Drohnen, angetrieben durch die amerikanischen Drohnen-Attentate und die zahlreichen zivilen Opfer von Drohnen-Angriffen.
Doch eben diejenigen, die sich jetzt so echauffieren über diese mögliche Beschaffung scheinen nicht gerade standfest zu sein in den Details.
Hier mal ein paar Beispiele:
(1)Die Bundeswehr hat viel Geld in die Entwicklung autonomer Kampfdrohnen (die sich auf ihr Ziel stürzen und explodieren) ausgegeben, und ihre Einführung wurde bisher mehr vom Ende des Kalten Krieges als irgendwas Anderem verhindert.: Taifun/TARES
Es gab also Budgets hierfür über Jahre, doch scheinbar hat sich damals keine der jetzigen Gegenstimmen gemeldet gehabt.
(2) Es gibt bereits bewaffnete Drohnen in der Bundeswehr. Einige Minenjagddrohnen zum Beispiel legen Sprengladungen bei Seeminen ab oder sprengen sich selbst, um die Mine zu zerstören.
(3) Und Artillerie? Ein Drohnenpilot sieht zumindest wen er tötet oder was er zerstört - doch kaum ein Artillerist (der schießenden Artillerie) tut dies jemals.
(4) Und was mit der GBU-54? Das ist eine phänomenale Munition*; Trägheitsnavigation, GPS, halbaktiver Laserzielsucher - alles an eine Bombe von vielseitiger Größe montiert und auf etwa 5 km Höhe oder mehr ohne viel Risiken abwerfbar.
Deutschland hat die schon vor einigen Jahren importiert ohne irgendeine öffentliche Debatte. Doch ein Typhoon/Eurofighter Pilot, der diese Munition abwirft würde ebenso auf einen Bildschirm schauen wie ein Drohnenpilot. Und dann wäre da noch Taurus...
(5) Seekriegführung ganz allgemein. Da gibt es auch eine erhebliche Trennung zwischen Entscheider über Leben und Tod und Ziel. Also warum gibt es dort kein ethisches Problem der Trennung zwischen Entscheider und geschehen wie angeblich beim Drohnenpiloten?
________________
Doch die Ausrede der Bürokraten und Politiker von der Hardthöhe dass bewaffnete Drohnen wegen der Fürsorgepflicht nötig seien hat auch nicht Hand und Fuß.
Ein Pilot in einer Typhoon/Eurofighter Maschine auf 5 km Höhe ist in einem Besatzungskrieg wie Afghanistan praktisch sicher. Eine Reaper-artige bewaffente Drohne wäre jedoch in einem vollausgewachsenen Krieg zwischen Staaten ein leichtes Ziel und nutzlos. Eine Drohne im Stile von Barracuda mag sich darin zwar eher behaupten, aber in so einem Kriege sind die Risiken für um die 200 Piloten geradezu vernachlässigbar. Viel wichtiger ist dann die Wirksamkeit, denn am Boden stehen dann die Leben von hunderttausenden Soldaten auf dem Spiel, und womöglich auch die Souveränität.
Ich fürchte, dies ist bloß einer der vielen schlecht beratenen Fieberschübe der anti-Militär Bewegung, ähnlich zur aussichtlosen und dummen Kampagne gegen Sturmgewehre und so weiter. Die Bewegung will eine Büchse der Pandora geschlossen halten, doch die ist eigentlich längst offen, und ob offen oder nicht ist angesichts der Auswahl an Alternativen eigentlich unerheblich.
Das gesamte Thema der militärischen Drohnen ist sehr durchwachsen. Vieles kann eingewandt werden gegen Drohnen der Art, wie die Amerikaner sie für Attentate und Besatzungskriege verwenden. Andere Drohnen sind sehr sinnvoll.
Was auch immer die Friedensbewegung für Energiereserven mobilisieren kann - sie sollten besser gezielt eingesetzt werden.
themenverwandte Blogtexte:
S O
*: You could equip a combat aircraft with MICA IR and GBU-54 and would be able to fly about 90% of missions with just these two munitions.
.
2014/07/03
2014/07/02
A dissonance between leading decisions of the same day
.
Yesterday was a strange day: Both the European Court of Justice for human rights and the German Federal Court of Justice published rulings, and they don't quite fit together.
The European Court ruled that a law which forbids people to wear face masks (basically an anti-Burqa law) is fine, for such covering up of the face is contrary to social interaction and thus undermines society.
Meanwhile, the German court ruled that the identity of the anonymous author of an online comment doesn't need be revealed, even if he lied. An exception is only fine for prosecution of crimes. So basically it upholds an individual's right to stay anonymous in one's interactions with others as long as one doesn't commit a crime.
example press reports: FAZ "Anonyme Äußerungen im Netz bleiben anonym" and FAZ "Straßburg erlaubt Burka-Verbot"
__________
This doesn't fit together in my opinion, and I have a strong suspicion: Later generations will rather reject the former than the latter decision. The European court's decision has a smell of a majority pushing (back) a minority, while the German court has the smell of supporting an established practice.
The French (and other countries') anti-burqa (rather anti-niqab) legislation doesn't seem to be wise anyway, but rather looks like an unnecessary infringement of freedom. It's a crude tool in a fight against an imported culture that hasn't been integrated well enough to be considered a subculture.
 |
| Veils don't necessarily look modest. |
This is often a problem with large immigrant minorities; their communities often concentrate enough on a few spots (few cities, or city quarters) to retain much of their original culture (usually a rather rural and not very modernised subculture of their homeland). This is very often entirely unproblematic and may even be considered a useful seed - especially if they import previously unheard-of trades. The Chinese beer brewery central of China is the small former protectorate/colony/whatever of Tsingtao, for example. German food choices have been enriched very much by Turks, Greeks and Italians - and then blends of indigenous and foreign food cultures were created.
What doesn't work so well is when immigrants maintain their culture enough to persist as foreign bodies in a society instead of as a subculture group - and especially so if their incomes stagnate below average (much above average isn't without issues either; see the Lebanese traders in Africa).
An inaccurate ban on a visual symptom of non-integration is crude and regrettably best-suited to provoke a perception of oppression. I doubt the court would have upheld the law with the same reasoning about social interaction if there was no Burqa debate and the plaintiff was a club of motorcyclists, a fan club of full beards and reflective sunglasses or a Tuareg representative (in which the men wear full face covers). The social interaction thing is likely just a pretence, an excuse.
We need to find smarter ways to address cultural integration issues. The French have a particularly rich choice of options in this regard.
S O
P.S.: Not all pseudo-Islamic headwear is a Burqa:
link to January 2014 Mail Online article on how the different headwears are called, and where they are popular.
Another link to the Islamic Myths blog writing about how the Qu'ran actually doesn't require such headwear.
The Al-Amira/JJiljab/Hijab headwear was IIRC up to the 1990's a typical elderly woman headwear in Germany.
.
2014/06/27
The belief that "war works"
.
Not long before his untimely death the historian Tony Judt observed that “For many American commentators and policymakers the message of the twentieth century is that war works.” Judt might have gone even further. Well beyond the circle of experts and insiders, many ordinary Americans at least tacitly share that view.
This reading of the twentieth century has had profound implications for U. S. policy in the twenty-first century. With the possible exception of Israel, the United States today is the only developed nation in which belief in war’s efficacy continues to enjoy widespread acceptance.
Others – the citizens of Great Britain and France, of Germany and Japan – took from the twentieth century a different lesson: War devastates. It impoverishes. It coarsens. Even when seemingly necessary or justified, it entails brutality, barbarism, and the killing of innocents. To choose war is to leap into the dark, entrusting the nation’s fate to forces beyond human control.
Americans persist in believing otherwise. That belief manifests itself in a number of ways, not least in a pronounced willingness to invest in, maintain, and employ military power.
I'm not sure I would group the British with the continentals on this, at least not their national level politicians.
Other than that I think this quote is fine. It offers an explanation for very much - military spending, foreign policy, tolerance of warmongers' commentary in the mass media and the general tone in public discourse about military and foreign affairs.
The lessons were already fading away in Europe, with the German governments applying a salami tactic towards a more militarised foreign policy (the Greens criticised this a lot, but once they were in power, they supported the Kosovo Air War participation, assuming fitness to govern would require being pro-war!).
S O
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)