The Most Dangerous Years in the History of Human Civilization

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

It’s difficult for Americans to appreciate the fact that the 1980s were probably the most dangerous years in the history of human civilization, NerveAgent says:

In his 1983 book The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union Edward Luttwak correctly diagnosed the terminal illnesses plaguing the communist superpower, and argued that it was highly likely that the Soviet Union would attempt to consolidate its position by invading the remote western provinces of China and setting up client governments in the newly conquered territories.

The Soviets would not consider a direct nuclear attack on the U.S. unless they felt themselves in a dire emergency:

Rather than destroy the guarantor of Western Europe’s independence, a more sensible policy was to gradually undermine the NATO alliance, driving a wedge between the U.S. and the European allies. This was the primary objective of Soviet grand strategy ever since the formation of NATO, but it could have been well-served by a short and sharp military operation on the extreme flanks of the Alliance, namely in northern Norway or northeast Turkey. These poorly defended regions could be seized in one night by a well-planned invasion, after which the USSR could declare a “unilateral armistice” and offer to open immediate negotiations, which of course would be inconclusive. If NATO agreed to such negotiations, confidence in the alliance would be shattered beyond repair. If it decided to take military action to retake the lost territories, political considerations about “demonstrating unity” would no doubt mean that the task force would be a multinational hodgepodge, thus guaranteeing failure and the collapse of the alliance.

However, even though a lighting operation on the fringes of NATO could reap enormous political benefits for the Soviet Union, it also involved a great deal of risk. It was possible that the U.S. might decide to mount its own counteroffensive, unencumbered by NATO politics. It might even launch a retaliatory action against Soviet interests elsewhere in the world. Whatever the case, the risk of escalation was beyond the level acceptable for imperial aggrandizement. Anyway, by the early 1980s Soviet diplomacy was succeeding in pulling Western Europe away from the United States; there was no point to risking that progress in a blitzkrieg on the desolate frontiers of NATO. Thus, Soviet planners were likely to aim elsewhere.

Carving out small client states from Iran’s many disparate nationalities and unstable politics offered some possibilities for consolidating the Soviet hold on the Caucasus, but for the long-term security of the empire, the major threat — aside from the U.S. — was China: “…the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic are both Great Powers in a world that now counts only three, and they are adjacent, while the third is removed from both.” (p.92) In other words, the two communist powers were destined to be enemies.

Read the whole thing. (Hat tip to Joseph Fouché.)

Razzia II: The Finel Countdown

Friday, February 12th, 2010

The Arabs have a long tradition of raiding, or ghazi, going back to their nomadic Bedouin days. The word entered the French language as razzia, when Field Marshal Thomas Bugeaud launched punitive expeditions in Algeria:

In Europe we make war against interests as well as armies. When we have beaten the armies we seize the centers of population, of trade, of industry, the custom-houses, the archives, and these interests are soon forced to capitulate.

There is only one interest to seize in Africa — the agricultural interest; it is more difficult to seize there than elsewhere, for there are no villages nor farms. I have reflected long upon it, rising up and lying down; and I have not been able to discover any other way of subduing the country than seizing upon this interest. As near as possible to the desert there must be established columns powerful enough to leave the indispensably necessary guard at the quarters, at the stores and the hospital. I have made a calculation that a column of 7000 men, well led, would be enough to beat the largest possible collection of Arabs; for in tumultuous gatherings, and the Arabs are nothing but tumultuous gatherings, numbers have nothing to do with the business; they are a multitude of very brave individuals without power of union. Beyond a certain limit the number is nothing, provided the soldiers are thoroughly convinced of this truth, that their morale may not be affected by the sight of the multitude.

I should wish the columns to be made up to 10,000 men; so as always to have 7000 disposable, and 2000 or 3000 non-effective or as indispensable guardians of the depot. I would establish one column at Tlemcen, one at Tlascara, one at Medeah. I would give the commanders orders not to pursue the Arabs, as it is useless; but to prevent them from sowing, reaping their harvests, or pasturing their cattle.

[Murmurs from the other deputies]

These murmurs seem to say that the Chamber finds this method too barbarous. Gentlemen, war is not made philanthropically; he who wills the end wills the means.

In fact, the Arabs cannot live without Algeria. In the desert there is no corn and but little pasture; only enough for sheep. The dates and wool of the desert are exchanged for the corn of Algeria. The Arabs can fly from your columns into the desert; but they cannot remain there, they must capitulate.

In An Alternative to COIN, Bernard Finel argues that the US should switch to a strategy of punitive expeditions, because that’s what we’re good at. In fact, Joseph Fouché notes, there are many examples of the use of this tactic in American history:

There are many examples of the use of this tactic in American history. It’s little acknowledged these days but American warfare has derived much of its historical effectiveness from making war on women, children, and property. The original tactic probably originated in the English experience in fighting the highly mobile Irish beyond the Pale. It was then applied in the first wars between the English and the Powhatan Confederacy in Virginia. Lord De La Warr, a veteran of the suppression of the Irish in the Nine Years’ War, “employed ‘Irish tactics’ against the Indians: troops raided villages, burned houses, torched cornfields, and stole provisions; these tactics, identical to those practiced by the Powhatan themselves, proved effective”. New England was only saved from being pushed into the sea by a successful razzias into Indian territory during King Phillip’s War. The Civil War provided several notable examples of razzia: the Vicksburg Campaign by Grant can be viewed as a razzia and, directly inspired by the Vicksburg Campaign, Sherman’s March to the Sea and Sheridan’s scouring of the Shenandoah Valley. After the Civil War, Sheridan applied the same tactics to the Plains Indians, launching flying columns in the late winter to catch the tribes in their camps before the melting of the snow restored their mobility. Custer’s force was a lead column who ran into what turned out to be a “tumultuous gathering” that was a bit too large for the coup de main Custer had successfully used against other Indian gatherings.

So Finel’s proposal has some positive antecedents as well as some positive points in its own right. It favors the heavy conventional maneuver force of the True Warriors of the Fulda Gap over the culturally aware touchy feely manpower intensive force the COINdinistas favor. It favors firepower over manpower based on the calculus that the other side will run out of men before we run out of high explosive. It favors the short attention span of the American viewing audience. It favors the Army’s most important mission (force protection) because casualties would probably be light (at least at first). It favors a technological and engineering focused mindset over a humanistic mindset.

That being said, I doubt the tactic that Finel proposes would be politically feasible in the United States any time soon. For a tactic of “repetitive raiding” to be successful, you would have to be able to repeat an invasion on the scale of the combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom in spring 2003 again and again as needed. Given that every American military intervention in my lifetime has been sold to a generally unenthusiastic American public as the rhetorical equivalent of World War II, demanding an equal level of emotional investment, I doubt the routinization of military intervention would go over well. Nomadic hordes of the steppes could easily justify annual raiding. The ideological and cultural framework that would supporting annual raiding seasons by the United States doesn’t exist.

It Must Be A Marketing Problem

Friday, February 12th, 2010

It must be a marketing problem, they always say to Steve Blank:

After I retired I would get calls from VC’s to help with “marketing problems” in their portfolio companies. The phone call would sound something like: “We have a company with great technology and a hot product but at the last board meeting we determined that they have a marketing problem. Can you take a look and tell us what you think?”

A week later I was in the conference room of the company having a meeting with the CEO.

“So VC x says you guys have a marketing problem. How can I help?” CEO – “Well, we’ve missed our sales numbers for the last six months.” Me – “I’m confused. I thought you guys have a marketing problem. What does this have to do with missing your sales plan? CEO – “Well our VP of Sales isn’t making the sales plan and he says it’s a marketing problem, and he’s a really senior guy.”

Now, I’m intrigued. The CEO asks the VP of Sales to join us in the conference room. (Note that most VP of Sales’ have world-class antenna for career danger. Being invited to chat with the CEO and an outside consultant that a board member brought in creates enough tension in a room to create static discharge.)

“Tell me about the marketing problem.” VP of Sales – “Marketing’s positioning and strategy is all wrong.” Me – “How’s that?” VP of Sales – “No one is interested in buying our product.”

If you’ve been in marketing long enough you recognize the beginning of the sales versus marketing finger pointing. (It usually ends up bad for all concerned.) Sales is on the hook for making the numbers and things aren’t looking good.

“How many salespeople do you have?” VP of Sales – “Six in the field, plus me.” Later I realized six salespeople without revenue to match was a proxy for an out of control burn rate that now had the boards serious attention.

“Is there a salesperson in Boston?” VP of Sales – “Sure.” Me – “What sales presentation is he using? VP of Sales – “The corporate presentation. What else do you think he’d be using?” Me – “Let’s get him on the phone and ask.”

Sure enough we’d get the sales person on the phone and find out that he stopped using the corporate presentation months ago. Why? The standard corporate presentation wasn’t working, so the Boston sales rep made up his own. (I asked for the Boston sales rep because in the U.S. they’re furthest from the Silicon Valley corporate office and any oversight.)

We call the five other sales people and find that they are also “winging it.”

I learned that the founders received their initial product orders from their friends in the industry and through board members personal connections. These “friends and family orders” made the first nine months of their revenue plan. With that initial sales “success” they began to hire and staff the sales department per the ”plan.” That’s how they ended up with seven people in sales (plus three more in marketing.)

But now the bill had come due. It turned out that these “friends and family orders” meant the company really hadn’t understood how and why customers would buy their product. There was no deep corporate understanding about customers or their needs. The company had designed and built their product and assumed it was going to sell well based on their initial early orders. Marketing was writing presentations and data sheets without having a clue what real problems customers had. And without that knowledge, sales essentially was selling blind.

You can imagine how Blank’s advice was taken:

My report back to the VC? Missing the sales numbers had nothing to do with marketing. The problem was much, much worse. The company had failed to do any Customer Discovery. Neither the CEO, VP of Sales or VP of Marketing had any idea what a repeatable sales model would look like before they scaled the sales force. Now they had a sales force in Brownian motion in the field, and a marketing department changing strategy and the corporate slide deck weekly. Cash was flowing out of the company and the VP of Sales was still hiring.

I suggested they cut the burn rate back by firing all the salespeople in the field, (keeping one in Silicon Valley,) and get rid of all of marketing. The CEO needed to get back to basics and personally get out of the building in front of customers to learn and discover what problems customers had and why the company’s product solved them.

Solar Cell from "Earth Abundant" Materials

Friday, February 12th, 2010

IBM researchers have produced a solar cell from inexpensive "earth abundant" materials:

The layer that absorbs sunlight to convert it into electricity is made with Copper (Cu), Tin (Sn), Zinc (Zn), Sulfur (S) and/or Selenium (Se). This is pretty abundant compared to the Copper (Cu), Indium (In), Gallium (Ga), and Selenium (Se) that GIGS thin film cells use.

The beauty is that it has a “conversion efficiency of 9.6 percent, which is 40 percent higher than previous attempts to create a solar cell made of similar materials.” But this is just a start. More improvements to power conversion should be possible.

IBM says that it “does not plan to manufacture solar technologies, but is open to partnering with solar cell manufacturers to demonstrate the technology.”

The gunfighter’s dilemma, revisited

Friday, February 12th, 2010

I recently cited a BBC news story on reaction time:

In a series of “laboratory gunfights” — with pistols replaced by electronic pressure pads — researchers found that participants who reacted to their opponent’s movement were on average 21 milliseconds faster to the draw.

That was true as far as it went, but — like many popular science stories — it missed the point almost entirely, as this New Scientist article makes clear:

The reacting players took 21 milliseconds less time to move, on average, than the first ones. Welchman thinks reaction movement involves a faster brain pathway than intentional movement. So Bohr was right? Not quite.

There was also a “reaction time”, a delay of 200 milliseconds before the players started to respond to their opponent’s actions. So although they moved faster, they never won.

Sort of changes things, doesn’t it?

(Hat tip to Johnny Abacus.)

Inside Sudan

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Shane Smith went inside Sudan to figure out what was really going on in Darfur — and he concluded that it was not about race; it was all about oil.

The gunfighter’s dilemma

Friday, February 12th, 2010

The gunfighter’s dilemma is whether to draw first or second. I had assumed the trade-off was between firing faster and acting legally in self-defense — but there is no such trade-off:

In a series of “laboratory gunfights” — with pistols replaced by electronic pressure pads — researchers found that participants who reacted to their opponent’s movement were on average 21 milliseconds faster to the draw.
Professor Andrew Welchman, who led the research, puts this down to the “quick and dirty” nature of instinctive responses.

Reacting to your opponent’s movement turns out to be significantly faster than the conscious decision-making process involved in choosing to draw your gun.

It turns out that this was already known to science — or to one famous scientist, at least:

It turns out that the celebrated Danish physicist and Nobel laureate, Niels Bohr, liked to take time off from figuring out the structure of the universe by watching westerns.

Bohr noticed that the man who drew first invariably got shot, and speculated that the intentional act of drawing and shooting was slower to execute than the action in response. Here was a hypothesis that could be tested, and with the aid of cap guns hastily purchased in a Copenhagen toyshop, duly proved it. In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won.

According to Manjit Kumar, the author of Quantum, Bohr’s prowess as a gunslinger was such that his victims wrote a ditty about him.

On pistols and lead, now Bohr had to prove
The defendant is quickest to move.
Bohr accepted the challenge without a frown
He drew when we drew, and shot each one of us down.
This tale has a moral, tho’ we knew it before.
It’s foolish to question the wisdom of Bohr.

The Roman Army Knife

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

When Rome fell, many important technologies were lost for centuries — including the Swiss Army Knife:

The world’s first Swiss Army knife has been revealed — made 1,800 years before its modern counterpart. An intricately designed Roman implement, which dates back to 200AD, it is made from silver but has an iron blade. It features a spoon, fork as well as a retractable spike, spatula and small tooth-pick.


Experts believe the spike may have been used by the Romans to extract meat from snails. It is thought the spatula would have offered a means of poking cooking sauce out of narrow-necked bottles.

The 3in x 6in (8cm x 15cm) knife was excavated from the Mediterranean area more than 20 years ago and was obtained by the museum in 1991. The unique item is among dozens of artefacts exhibited in a newly refurbished Greek and Roman antiquities gallery at the Fitzwilliam Museum, in Cambridge.

(Hat tip to Younghusband.)

Escape from New York, Again?

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

In the 1970s, it wasn’t hard to imagine a New York City that got so bad they walled it off and made it a prison. John Carpenter’s Escape from New York made a certain kind of sense. Now they want to remake it:

In the original, set at the end of World War III, New York City was a husk of itself after being turned into a giant prison, but that kind of destruction gets pricey. So in Escape 2.0, the Big Apple that the as-yet-uncast Snake Plissken is dropped into will be geographically undesirable, but intact: This Manhattan was evacuated and turned into a privately run penal colony after the detonation of a crude radioactive dirty bomb on the outskirts of the city.

“It is not a disaster movie,” says a source close to the project. “It is an exposé of an ecosystem, if you put a huge wall around Manhattan and then dropped in the most fucked-up, dangerous criminals on Earth.” This means New York will still be recognizable to audiences, à la I Am Legend, rather than an entirely new Armageddon Island.

I didn’t realize that the original, with its B-movie sensibilities, was expensive to make:

Carpenter and his crew persuaded the city to shut off the electricity to ten blocks at a time at night. The film was shot from August to November of 1980. It was a tough and demanding shoot for the filmmaker as he recalls. “We’d finish shooting at about 6 am and I’d just be going to sleep at 7 when the sun would be coming up. I’d wake up around 5 or 6 pm, depending on whether or not we had dailies, and by the time I got going, the sun would be setting. So for about two and a half months I never saw daylight, which was really strange.”
[...]
When it came to shooting in New York City Carpenter managed to persuade the city officials to grant access to Liberty Island. “We were the first film company in history allowed to shoot on Liberty Island at the Statue of Liberty at night. They let us have the whole island to ourselves. We were lucky. It wasn’t easy to get that initial permission. They’d had a bombing three months earlier and were worried about trouble.”

This is a cropped screen shot from the DVD version of John Carpenter's Escape From New York. It shows the wire frame image generated by the glider's approach computer. At the time of production, computer effect were prohibitively expensive, so a physical model was painted black and outlined using reflective tape. The model was then filmed using a black light.Some effects were too expensive to do as planned:

As Snake pilots the glider into the city there are three screens on his control panel displaying wireframe animations of the landing target on the World Trade Center and surrounding buildings. What appears on those screens was not computer generated. Carpenter wanted hi-tech computer graphics which were very expensive at the time, even for such a simple animation. To get the animation he wanted the effects crew filmed the miniature model set of New York City they used for other scenes under black light with reflective tape placed along every edge of the model buildings. Only the tape shows up and appears to be a 3D wireframe animation.

Unpopular War

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Kissinger and Nixon continued an unpopular war, Robert Kaplan notes, and they were pilloried for it:

Even the harshest journalistic accounts make clear that Kissinger and Nixon genuinely felt, despite the public outcry, that continuing the war was necessary for America to sustain its strategic position worldwide. Shawcross wrote that the two men were influenced by both the “Munich mentality” and the memory of how President Eisenhower ended the Korean War — by threatening the Chinese and the North Koreans. To Kissinger and Nixon, playing tough was not a surrealistic abstraction but something necessary and definable. However wrong the stance they took may appear in hindsight, Kissinger and Nixon did what they thought was right for the country’s interests, knowing they would be reviled — especially among the intellectual elite, who usually have the last word in writing history.

Now, isn’t that exactly how we want — or at least how we say we want — our leaders to act? Isn’t what angers so many people about President Bill Clinton and other current politicians the fact that they make policy according to the results of public-opinion polls rather than to their own conviction? It may be the case that polling is unfairly criticized — that for a leader to base his or her decisions on public opinion is not so bad after all, especially if one has in mind the case of Kissinger and Nixon. It is also likely that in prolonging the war for the reasons they did, Kissinger and Nixon demonstrated more real character than do many of our present leaders.

It’s hard to point to Nixon as an exemplar of real character, but the point still stands that a principled conservative — or neo-conservative — is not about to get respect in the media for his character.

Terminator-Dog

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

DARPA has awarded Boston Dynamics a $32 million contract to build its BigDog robot and given it 30 months to turn its prototype into a war-ready LS3 Legged Squad Support System:

LS3 is a direct descendant of BigDog, and it’ll be battle-hardened and clever enough to use GPS and machine vision to either yomp along behind a pack of troops, or navigate its own way to a pre-programmed assembly point. Yup, that’s right, LS3 is smart enough to trot off over the horizon all on its lonesome. That opens up all sorts of amazing military possibilities, like resupply of materiel to troops who are deployed in difficult remote locations, as well as the standard “If LS3 can offload 50 pounds from the back of each soldier in a squad, it will reduce warfighter injuries and fatigue and increase the combat effectiveness of our troops” as described by BD’s president Marc Raibert.

The obvious name for such a pack-carrying robot is M.U.L.E.

And its clear that these, and other, potential benefits have been proven to DARPA enough that it’s prepared to fund what seems to be an extremely future-focused piece of military hardware. But LS3, of course, stands for much more than its simple “squad support” label would suggest. It’s placing artificially-intelligent robots right next to soldiers on the battle field, which is a natural extension of the way robots are currently used in combat–essentially as smart remote control units for situations too dangerous for a human to risk. And in that sense, LS3 is a significant piece of kit. Because it won’t be too long before someone considers the benefits of replacing its 400-pound load with a heavy gun, and LS32 becomes an AI-equipped armed battlefield robot. More terminator-dog than K9, you see.

The Difference between a Dictator and a Monarch

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

There is a key difference between a dictator and a monarch, and that difference is stability:

There are many differences between Hitler and Frederick [the Great], but perhaps the key one is stability. Frederick, while not intrinsically secure from his foreign enemies, was quite secure from any domestic opposition. No one was trying to kill him; no one could have accomplished anything by killing him. He was, in short, a monarch. A dead monarch is replaced, automatically, by another monarch — the identity of whom is already known. If the old monarch was assassinated, God forbid, the new monarch is generally not the assassin (or his employers).

Not so for a dictator! People were trying to kill Hitler all the time, and it’s a Satanic miracle that none of them succeeded. If, say, Elser’s bomb had worked, it would have changed the course of history. There was no Hitler 2.0, or vice-Hitler, or Son of Hitler, waiting in the wings. Hitler, for all his faults, was one of a kind. Thus, the incentive was considerable.

And thus, Hitler — unlike Frederick — has to devote considerable effort to shoring up his sovereignty, which is by no means secure. He has to scapegoat the Jews and fight the Communists, for instance; his sovereignty depends on his popularity, and he is popular because he fights these popular enemies.

And, as we already know, it’s better to live under a stationary bandit than a roving bandit.

Rocket Mass Heaters

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Lesley Verbrugge came across references to rocket mass heaters while researching solar ovens, got sidetracked, bought a book on the subject, and ended up building one:

The Three T’s
In seeking a clean burn, think 3-Ts: Time, Temperature, Turbulence. The molecules of oxygen and of the combustion gases all need to be able to find each other as well as commingle. It’s like one of those huge country dances, where all the men line up on one wall, and all the women on the opposite one. When the music begins, everyone surges out onto the dance floor, looking for a partner of the opposite gender. For everyone to pair up, the tune needs to be prolonged (time), the music fast (temperature) and the dance rambunctious (that’s your turbulence).

So your combustion unit needs an insulated combustion chamber (in order to maintain the dancers at a high temperature), a tall enough heat riser that all the oxygen is used up (as the hot, lightweight dancers strut and spin their way up it), and a nonstreamlined profile to tumble the gases (shakin’ their boogilators, as they say). Hence the abrupt right-angle turns in a Rocket Stove’s interior.

Directing the Heat
There are variables which change where the heat is delivered. You can divide the heat that your stove generates according to your needs. There will be a trade-off between fast radiant heat and a long-lasting thermal battery. What heats up quickly — for example, a radiant barrel with little insulation around it — also cools down quickly. Conversely, what heats up slowly cools down slowly, so that the system with its pipe sunk several inches into a massive bed or couch provides warm comfort all night, hours after the fire has gone out. Decide well in advance what proportion you would like to have available for cooking, fast convective heat in your house, direct radiant heat that you can sit in front of, or contact heat that you sit, sprawl or lie on.

Perpetual Creation and Routine

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Profound policy thrives on perpetual creation, Kissinger said, while good administration thrives on routine. Robert Kaplan agrees:

Foreign Service officers tend to support those policies that do not threaten their jobs and chances for promotion. I have found that many of them just want to get through the day. A Secretary of State who follows these instincts, rather than manipulating and coopting them, is a failed Secretary of State.

Obama’s War

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

A few years after going inside Afghanistan with the British Army, Ben Anderson went back in with US Marines, to see what he called Obama's War up close.