Rolling-Ball Binary Digital Mechanical Computer

Wednesday, July 10th, 2013

The Digi-Comp II is a rolling-ball binary digital mechanical computer — and a recreation of a classic 1960s educational computer kit:

It’s an automatic binary digital mechanical computer, capable of conducting basic operations like adding, multiplying, subtracting, dividing, counting, and so forth. And what’s more, all of these operations are conducted by the action of balls rolling down a slope, directed by mechanical switches and flip flops, and all powered by gravity.

Overall, it is slightly smaller than the original (mid 1960s) Digi-Comp II, which used half-inch diameter glass marbles. Rather than marbles, we’ve opted for pachinko balls, which are shiny steel balls 11 mm (about 7/16″) in diameter. Using the smaller size has allowed us to reduce some of the feature sizes, and reduce the overall size of the machine from 14×28.5″ to 10×24″, while retaining all of the original functions and remaining finger-friendly.

Digi Comp II

The Digi-Comp II: First Edition is CNC carved from rock-solid half-inch hardwood plywood, laser-engraved to provide it with labels, and hand fitted with over 60 laser-cut parts. It comes assembled, tested, and ready to use.

The Benning Revolution

Wednesday, July 10th, 2013

Then-Lt. Col. George C. Marshall Jr. revolutionized the curriculum at the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia:

By the time Marshall departed Benning, the number of hours devoted to tactics instruction in the Company Officer Course had nearly doubled from 221 to 400. For the Advanced Course, it totaled almost 800 hours.

[...]

He championed the concept of the holding attack as the standard operation that commanders at any level could adapt to a wide variety of situations. While one element fixed the attention of the enemy with fire or a frontal attack, another would maneuver against a flank, and the third would remain in reserve to exploit whatever opportunity arose.

[...]

To ensure that students could actually implement these concepts, Marshall moved most of the tactics course out of the classroom and into the field.

The Collapse of American Criminal Justice

Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

Handle just finished reading William J. Stuntz’s The Collapse of American Criminal Justice which includes this chart of murder rate versus black population percentage:

Murder Rate and Black Population

The friendly professor, Handle explains, spends the first half of the book trying to explain it away, and the second half of the book proposing policies that fly in direct contradiction to it.

Addendum: The Amazon preview did not include the figure, but it did include this table:

Murder Rate and Black Population Table

Ethnic policy in ancient Japan

Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

Japanese history is fascinating, Spandrell says, because of how short it is:

The Japanese imperial house is the oldest of the world, dating to around 500 AD. But the funny thing is that the imperial house was the first historical polity to arise in Japan ever. That’s right, Japanese history starts after the Roman Empire fell. Actually the first evidences of agriculture only date to around 300 BC, i.e. after Alexander the Great. For some reason farmers only came to Japan 7000 years after they began farming next door in China. 7000 years to finally round up the courage to cross the Tsushima strait.

Before farming, Japan had the Jomon culture, a fairly sophisticated hunter-gatherer culture known for their pottery and semi-sedentary lifestyle. Oldest pottery in the world actually. It seems Japan was so full of food that hunters could just stay in a place and hunt (mostly fish) their food from home. The Jomon had their fun for around 10,000 years until rice farmers came over from Korea and brought agriculture and metallurgy with them in 300 BC. The Yayoi culture they are called. These farmers moved eastward, and slowly built their own megalithic civilization, with massive tombs at all.

By 700 AD you had a modern kingdom, with writing, a Chinese style bureaucracy, international trade, overseas expeditionary armies and everything you can think of. They Yamato court based itself in the central plains on what’s today Osaka/Kyoto, and even had the balls of calling themselves Heavenly Emperor and tell the Chinese behemoth they expected equal treatment. The actual territorial reach of the Yamato court wasn’t that big though. They had reached the Kanto plains (where Tokyo is today), but had some trouble expanding further north. If you check Google Map’s Terrain layer you can see that the terrain north of Tokyo isn’t very inviting. And it’s cold too. But there was something else.

Someone else actually. Remember those Jomon guys? Well they didn’t just disappear. While the Yayoi farmers mostly took over and replaced the Jomon culture in the West of the country, the eastern Jomon had one thousand years to learn some tricks to defend themselves. They had adopted horses, and became experienced horse-archers. They also learned some horticulture, and even to work metal. By the time the Yamato court armies reached the Northeast, they had a fierce enemy to deal with.

The imperial documents call these people Emishi, or sometimes just “hairy people”, for their long beards and body hair. Time after time they sent armies to go out to get these people to stop raiding their farming villages. These battles more often than not ended up in failure, the Emishi having the home turf advantage, and being quite adept at ambushing and hit-and-run tactics. Once in a while though, some Emishi tribe would surrender to Yamato armies, and swear allegiance to the emperor in Kyoto.

What’d they do with these people? They couldn’t be left in their place to go on raiding farming villages, so the merciful imperial court had the great idea of rounding up these savage tribes and settling them West, in the Yamato heartland. They were settled in good land, put under the care of the local sheriff, and given free food and clothing, and exempted from taxes until they learned to fend for themselves. That is correct, enemy combatants were put on welfare.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

These surrendered Emishi were called Fushuu (prisoners). As you can probably guess, they didn’t just became productive farmers and renounce welfare in a generation. They mostly hang around, keeping as much of their culture as they could, and causing trouble to everyone around them. You can imagine that local officials weren’t very amused with their new subjects. As it happens, civil order was declining too, the Yamato court’s hold on power started to loosen, taxes started to be collected through tax farmers, etc. You get the idea. Peasants were having trouble and complaining too much. The old centralized armies were disbanded after decades of peace, so local officials had to take care of civil order in their domains. They had to raise troops though. Then it struck them: what about these Emishi prisoners? They are fit, adept horse archers, go on practicing their craft all day. They’d make very fine soldiers. And so the Barbarian tribes became the official police force of Japan.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The Japanese government was using foreign barbarians to screw with their own people more than a thousand years ago. Why would they do that? Because the court didn’t give a shit. Emishi tribal leaders stayed in the imperial capital, hang out with the Yamato nobles, and used their government-given riches and patronage to meddle with their old kin in the Northeast, which had grown a taste for Yamato culture, eventually taking Yamato names. The Emishi nobles got Yamato peasants to farm for them, and their tax-exempt status as “allies” of the court made them very rich. They also traded in fur, horses and gold, with little official oversight.

So you have the Emishi having a blast inside and outside of the borders. What happened then? Peace and prosperity? Hah. The “prisoners” became internal bandits preying on trade caravans from the provinces to the capital, and soon afterwards started rioting against the court. The second half of the 9th century was plagued with Emishi riots, which threatened to destroy the polity. Finally in 897 the court had had enough, and ordered that the Emishi were rounded up and deported back to their homeland in the Northeast.

The rioting stopped, but the Emishi did leave a long lasting influence in Japanese military history. The Yamato learned horseback archery from them, and the Emishi sword eventually evolved in the world-famous Katana.

That new secret gadget is all right

Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

Radar started showing some real promise in the late 1930s:

Over the winter of 1936–1937 the Signal Corps Laboratories kept developing new antennas, each one smaller and better than the last. The transmitter antennas enhanced and focused the signal they emitted, while reception antennas became ever more sensitive in picking up faint return signals.

The Signal Corps Laboratories mounted these arrays of metal rods on the chassis developed for the old sound locators, which allowed the antennas to swing and tilt easily to scan the sky. Initially, two receiving antennas were used. A tall narrow one obtained readings for the elevation or height of the aircraft, while a low wide one provided the azimuth or direction of the target. Blair’s engineers also solved the toughest technical challenge of synchronizing the pulses of the transmitter and receiver. The Army Air Corps regularly provided planes for field tests of each new iteration of the equipment.

In May 1937 the Signal Corps Laboratories successfully demonstrated the concept in the field to the secretary of war, senior generals, and several congressmen. The objective of the night time test was to guide a searchlight onto the target so that when the light flicked on the aircraft was already in the beam. The radar set achieved the goal nearly every time, though not entirely on its own as it turned out. Harold A. Zahl, one of the lead civilian scientists working on the project, had noted that one search light in particular was most effective. After the dignitaries departed, he spoke to the corporal in charge. The soldier explained that in most cases he had been able to find the bomber in his binoculars with the aid of a local town’s lights reflecting off the clouds, thus allowing him to precisely direct the searchlight. His purpose had not been to make radar look better, but merely to outdo the aviators in the cat-and-mouse game the two branches habitually played against each other. He allowed, however: “That new secret gadget is all right. Why, every time you fellows turned on the control light it was pretty close to the target — almost as good as my eyes.”

Larry Ellison’s Fantasy Island

Monday, July 8th, 2013

The real mystery of Larry Ellison’s Fantasy Island is how it took this long for Larry Ellison to buy his own island:

It had been his far-fetched dream since he was in his 20s, when he first flew over one of the smallest of Hawaii’s inhabited islands in a Cessna 172 and was captivated by the thousands of acres of pineapple fields.

In June 2012, Mr. Ellison, the co-founder and chief executive of technology giant Oracle, ORCL -2.61% bought Lanai for $300 million from American businessman David Murdock. Now he owns nearly everything on the island, including many of the candy-colored plantation-style homes and apartments, one of the two grocery stores, the two Four Seasons hotels and golf courses, the community center and pool, water company, movie theater, half the roads and some 88,000 acres of land. (2% of the island is owned by the government or by longtime Lanai families.)

For the first time, Mr. Ellison has publicly detailed his ambitious and costly plans for the 141-square-mile island. They include building an ultraluxury hotel on the pristine, white-sand beach facing Molokai and Maui and returning commercial agriculture to the clear-cut acres. He also plans to endow a sustainability laboratory that will help make the island “the first economically viable 100%-green community.” And one of his biggest tasks: winning over the island’s small, but wary, local population, one whose economic future is heavily dependent on his decisions.

The Boy Who Loved Math

Monday, July 8th, 2013

Cory Doctorow declares The Boy Who Loved Math: The Improbable Life of Paul Erdos to be a great kids’ book, which suggests that the book skips over one factor in the great mathematician’s prolific output — his amphetimine use.

Boy Who Loved Math 0

Boy Who Loved Math 8

Boy Who Loved Math 12

Boy Who Loved Math 38

M1 Garand Production

Monday, July 8th, 2013

With war on the horizon, production of the M1 Garand rifle at the Springfield Armory ramped up slowly but steadily:

In September 1937 the armory made ten rifles a day; two years later, one hundred per day; and by January 1941, six hundred a day. With the Army growing rapidly at that point, the government began placing large orders with the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. The civilian firm would produce over a half million Garands during the war, while Springfield, at its peak, turned out four thousand a day. All of the M1s produced by the end of World War II—over four million—came from Springfield and Winchester. The efficiency of mass production resulted in the cost dropping from over $200 per rifle in the beginning to just $26 per copy by 1945.

Secular Apocalypses

Sunday, July 7th, 2013

Rory Miller normally discusses violence, but he recently had an epiphany:

Want to share it, but really not sure I want to draw this much fire. Background: I don’t get religion. I see it all around me, I’ve read and studied, but on a deep level, I don’t get the ‘why.’ Whatever need drives people to believe that there is a plan is just absent in my psyche. Whether I imagine a world with or without gods, neither feels different to me.

I have a couple of friends who can be described as born-again atheists. They are just as fundamentalist, loud and angry as the most vitriolic born-again Christian or Muslim convert. I have several friends who self-describe as secular humanists. Most are areligious, a few antireligious.

The epiphany. Listening in on the debate over GMO labeling, it occurred to me that this was a religion demanding that their food be labeled “Not Halal” or “Not Kosher.” It wasn’t a scientific or health concern. There hasn’t been an unmodified food crop since we figured out cross-pollination and selective breeding; and there is no such thing as an inorganic cucumber. And to actually revert to pre-industrial farming practices and plants as they occur in the wild would mean mass starvation, which isn’t healthy. The labels are merely the stamp of approval of a large, powerful, growing and evangelical religion.

So I started looking a little closer. Is there a doctrine that flies in the face of science? Sure. Lots. Some that flies in the face of simple observation. The horrible book I just read goes out of the way to praise the egalitarian and peaceful natures of simple foraging peoples. But in the case studies he mentions, if you look at the numbers their murder rate is astronomical. Only two murders in a population seems small. But in a population of 2000? That’s twenty times the murder rate in the US. One of the ‘peaceful’ groups had more executions per capita than Texas could dream… not counting the babies left to freeze to death, especially girls.

Egalitarian? When a population has almost no material possession, it’s kind of disingenuous to marvel about equality of those possessions. And when there are only two jobs (hunting and gathering) and which one you will get is decided entirely by gender with no exceptions… but, hey. You can pretend to call it equality. I believe apartheid, separate but equal, is the modern term.

But the doctrine requires you to portray these societies as having the values that the doctrine espouses—egalitarianism, peacefulness, sexual freedom (even if the writer notes that cheating wives are sometimes murdered he marvels at the sexual freedom) and living at one with nature (author states that survival is easy even in the harshest conditions if one has the skills, then says that being cast out of the tribe is a death sentence due to starvation).

There are even prophets of the apocalypse. The world will end if we don’t follow the dogma.
The world will end. From Rachelle Carson’s “Silent Spring” to global warming, how many apocalypses (what is the plural of apocalypse?) do you remember?

We laugh at the Mayan calendar and the 5/5/2005 prophecies. Nuts sitting in bunkers. But how many times has the end of the world been declared by the secular? Hmmmm. Just the ones that I remember:

  • Ice age in the ‘70’s
  • Hole in the ozone layer (remember that all animals are supposed to be blind by now)
  • Acid rain
  • No possibility that any oil would be left by 2020 at the latest
  • Mass starvation unless ZPG was achieved world-wide by 1990 at the latest
  • Nuclear holocaust statistically unavoidable
  • Y2K computer bug
  • SARS, avian flu and nile virus
  • And, of course, the killer bees

Note, I’m not debating what’s real and what isn’t. I’m marveling that so many people who reject the idea of a vengeful god seem to have a need to create one. But they call it nature and insist the dogma is science. Like some cults we could mention. What fascinates me is that the pattern echoes even in the details.

The interesting thing about this, is that the prophets preach that the solution is in the doctrine. Case in point is that what we needed to do in the seventies to stave off the ice age (quit driving cars so much, quit putting hydrocarbons in the atmosphere) is the exact same thing the current prophets say we need to do to prevent global warming.

And there is even an inquisition for those who commit heresy. A news commentator had to recant for saying that there was doubt about global warming. The word ‘recant’ was actually used. The Oregon State Meteorologist (who appeared to be of the opinion that the temperature was rising but the cause was probably complex) feared for his job.

Breaking the Mold at Aachen

Sunday, July 7th, 2013

Tanks are made to go fast and shoot far, so the prevailing wisdom about using tanks in cities has been, don’t. But some tank commanders have been breaking the mold. In fact, some broke the mold way back in WWII, as the Americans broke through the Westwall and took Aachen:

The fighting in Aachen settled into a routine for the Americans who learned the fine points of urban warfare along the way. Typically, a tank fired on the building just ahead of its supporting rifle platoon, suppressing enemy fire until the soldiers could enter and clear the structure with hand grenades and automatic fire. The Americans were rightfully concerned about the ever-present threat of panzerfausts. Infantrymen covered the vulnerable tanks, which in turn covered the infantry. In practice, the tanks and tank destroyers usually stayed one street back from the advancing infantry, creeping forward or around a corner to engage their targets. Once the block was cleared, the armored vehicles would dash forward to the newly cleared street. There was no attempt to avoid collateral damage, which was immense.

One aspect of the fighting was unconventional. For several days prior to the attack on Aachen, a detachment of US Army Rangers was operating under the direction of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donning German uniforms with the correct papers and accoutrements, the Rangers were organized into small teams and were to penetrate enemy lines to conduct sabotage and raids. Every man spoke German fluently and each had spent months training for such operations. Working under the cover of darkness, one was successful in entering Aachen and succeeded in destroying a signals center. The Rangers then positioned two machine guns covering the barracks of a German quick-reaction force. Using signal flares and pre-arranged American artillery to rouse the enemy, the Rangers cut the Germans down as they emerged from the bunker.

[...]

The tactics employed emphasized fire and maneuver, the standard for the day, and closely resembled the procedures used in the hedgerows and through the numerous towns and villages in the drive across France. The tanks and tank destroyers were used as mobile platforms to bring heavy ordnance to where it was needed by the infantrymen. Armor was in the supporting role, and not engaged in bold offensives leaving the infantry to catch up. The riflemen bore the brunt of the fight for Aachen, but counted on the armor to make their job possible. This operation just happened to be at a much larger scale.3

(Hat tip to Jonathan Jeckell and Graham Jenkins.)

Can Recycling Be Wrong, When It Feels So Right?

Saturday, July 6th, 2013

Mike Munger — the EconTalk regular — was asked to keynote an “Australia Recycles” conference years ago:

We scrap cars because they are valuable metal.  The leftover rice and chicken go into the fridge, for tomorrow’s casserole.  And toilet paper…well, we throw it away, after using it.

I focused on glass, especially the kind of green glass used for wine bottles.  Glass is heavy and inert.  That means it’s expensive to cart around and handle, in addition to the problems of breaking and cutting workers. Glass is harmless in a landfill and breaks down into something very like the sand it came from.

The commodity that glass can be ground into, called “cullet,” just isn’t very valuable.  Mixed cullet, even from glass that looks similar, turns a dull black; sorting to avoid mixing takes time. Recyclists seem to believe that everything should be conserved, except time, the one resource we can’t make more of.

The alternative to recycling green glass is to use virgin materials — sand — and add the chemical compounds and color required.  A cubic yard of mixed cullet can actually be much more expensive to convert into usable glass than a cubic yard of sand, depending on conditions.  That means that “recycling,” when you add on the fuel costs and pollution impact of collecting small quantities of the stuff from neighborhoods, actually uses more energy, and wastes more resources, than using virgin materials.

There are exceptions.  If disposal costs are high and there is actual demand for the cullet, then green glass is highly recyclable.  The best example is northern California, with valuable land, a large population, and lots of manufacturers eager to put new wine in recycled bottles.

Still, given the costs and lack of demand in most areas, opportunities for environmentally responsible recycling of green glass are rare.  As a result, hundreds of municipalities across the United States have tried to suspend their glass recycling programs.[1]  Interestingly, in some of these (including my home town of Raleigh, North Carolina) there were legal or political barriers that forced the resumption of curbside glass collection.  Citizens voted to force the city to pick up the glass in those plastic bins, because they don’t like to throw the glass away.  The glass is picked up, trucked to the recycling facility, and either bagged or boxed and then shipped, in a different truck, to the landfill.  In effect, citizens are paying the city extra to throw away the glass, so that they can pretend it’s being recycled.[2]

As I was going through my presentation, I was surprised at the reaction of the audience of the conference.  They weren’t angry; they were bored.  When I finished, a man stood up and gave what seemed to be the response of the entire audience, given their nods and smiles:  “Look, professor, we all know this.  Everyone knows that there are problems with green glass.  We all understand that there is no market for cullet.  But it doesn’t matter.  The main thing is to get people in the habit of recycling, because it’s the right thing to do.”

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, since everyone in attendance made their living from selling recycling equipment to cities and local governments.  But let’s be fair: no one in that room was cynical.  No one thought this was fraud the way I did.  Recycling gives people a chance to express their concern about the environment, and concern about the environment is good.  Sure, sometimes the actual effect on the environment is harmful, as in the case of green glass, but that’s a small price to pay for developing the right habits of mind.  I wasn’t wrong, I just didn’t understand their objectives.

How the Army actually does business

Saturday, July 6th, 2013

A longtime high-level Pentagon intelligence analyst walked Robert Draper of the New Republic through the reasons why the government does a lousy job producing military intelligence tools:

An ambitious Army intelligence commander might want to impress his superiors by coming up with some new way of graphing intel. The procurers at the Pentagon go through the motions of ordering up the visionary new graphing software, secure in the knowledge that the commander will soon be promoted and out of their hair. The idea gets kicked over to some government agency’s development shop, which issues a design contract to one of the big defense contractors within the military-industrial complex that has developed a tight relationship with the Pentagon and has “no incentive to deliver something on time and on cost,” said the veteran analyst. At no point would anyone second-guess the ambitious commander. The agency bureaucrats were, he told me, “amateurs, essentially, who are incentivized to make their customers, the government requester, happy — to the point where they engineer things that won’t work. They accept everything as a requirement, and they judge every requirement to be equal. You say to them, ‘I want something with a bell that’ll go off whenever something interesting comes up.’ So they spent five million dollars on that, and no one asks, ‘Why the $#@! would you want a bell?’”

Really, that sounds like most IT projects in industry, too.

Canadians for the Confederacy

Friday, July 5th, 2013

I remember visiting Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where the tour guide asked, “How many British colonies were there in America?”

The older kids on the tour enthusiastically answered, “Thirteen!”

“No,” he said, “thirteen went on to become the United States,” but the rest went on to form Canada:

At the outset of the U.S. Civil War, collective memories remained alive of the French and Indian War when, in the late 1750s and early 1760s, New York State, the Ohio Valley, Nova Scotia, Montreal and Quebec City were battlefields.

Britain’s myopic handling of the war’s aftermath bred resentments and misunderstandings that grew to rebellion. In an attempt to keep Quebec loyal, Britain instituted the 1774 Quebec Act. Quebecers saw it as protecting their French/Catholic rights within a system of government they understood. American rebels, on the other hand, considered the Quebec Act as among what they called the Coercive or Intolerable Acts, because it was yet another example of Britain denying democracy to its colonies and, consequently, another precursor to revolution. Quebecers were invited to send delegates to join those representing the thirteen colonies who were defining the new America at the First and Second Continental Congresses in Philadelphia. Both invitations were ignored. With those rebuffs, patriot and later America’s second president, John Adams, explained to his fellow delegates that, in order to defend the northern flank, Quebec would need to be attacked and liberated Quebecers should be persuaded to join the revolution. In November 1775, Montreal fell to American troops, and Benedict Arnold’s men tried but could not take Quebec City.

Congress dispatched three delegates, one of whom was Benjamin Franklin, to woo Quebecers to the rebel cause. They failed. The Québécois had little interest in joining a ragtag group of rebellious colonies, only two of which allowed the practice of their religion, and whose army mistreated civilians, and stole property and food.

The Revolution was America’s first civil war. About a third of the American colonists wanted nothing to do with what Adams, Jefferson and the others were selling. With every British military defeat, more of those loyal to the Crown left or were driven out. Some fled to Britain while others went south, but most escaped to what remained of British North America. Eventually, about thirty thousand moved to Nova Scotia and ten thousand to Quebec. A number of freed Blacks emigrated.

Britain had lost thirteen of its North American colonies and did not fancy losing the others. Wary of allowing demographic and economic growth to create a new powerhouse such as wealthy and populous Virginia, it split Nova Scotia to create New Brunswick. It divided Quebec into Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec). A new political system was installed that afforded a semblance of self-rule with British-appointed governors in charge. A border was loosely drawn, and American fishers were granted inland rights. Those long established in the suddenly growing British colonies shared with the revolution’s refugees and the newcomers from the British Isles a deep respect for British political values and an abhorrence of the ideals and aspirations upon which the American Revolution had been based. They were determined to remain separate from the United States.

That determination was tested a generation later in the War of 1812. Relentless American expansion had led to Native resistance and then to uprisings inspired and led by Shawnee chief, Tecumseh, and his brother, known as the Prophet. So-called War Hawks in Congress convinced themselves that Britain was behind the Native unrest and was supporting piracy and the impressment of Americans into British naval service. The United States could only be safe and prosperous, they argued, if Britain was pushed out of North America.

Americans saw the struggle as a war of liberation; Canadians believed it was a war of survival. It was a cousins’ war — and it was horrible. When it finally ended, Britain’s flag was still there — Canada remained. Border tensions eased as the 1817 Rush-Bagot Agreement led to the demilitarization of the Great Lakes. The war had given Americans a national anthem and the symbol of Uncle Sam. It afforded Canadians the pride born of having defended their land and the un-American ideals in which they believed. A new, unifying and unique nationalism was taking root.

In 1837, rebellions erupted in Upper and Lower Canada. Gunfire echoed and blood stained the streets of Toronto and French Canadian towns. Britain sent Lord Durham to see what the fuss had been about, and his recommendations led to the creation of a more responsible and representative government in a unified colony called Canada. He hoped that Canada East (Quebec) would soon be subsumed by Canada West (Ontario). Nova Scotia and New Brunswick remained separate. Britain appointed a governor general to oversee all of its North American colonies. The Canadian government was ostensibly subservient to him, as were the Maritime governments to their lieutenant-governors who reported to him. It was with this political structure and its deep-seated suspicion of the United States that Canada and the Maritimes faced an increasingly belligerent America that was tearing itself apart.

Shortly after the U.S. Civil War began in April 1861, Britain declared itself neutral. The Canadian and Maritime governments dutifully echoed that official line and informed their citizens that it was against the law to support North or South, and for individuals to join in the fight. One would expect that Canadians and Maritimers would abide by their government’s wishes and that public opinion would overwhelmingly support the North. After all, they were by and large law-abiding folks, loyal to Britain and nearly unanimous in their abhorrence of slavery, which had been banned in British North America a generation earlier. Further, Canadians and Maritimers were geographically closer to the North and for years thousands more had travelled to those Northern states for work than to the distant South. Business people enjoyed more commerce with Northern than Southern industry. Canadians travelling to Britain often went by way of New York and Boston. Despite such familiarity, however, public and popular opinion of the North and South was divided, volatile and multi-dimensional. It was coloured by class, ethnicity, religion, ideology and region.

(Hat tip to Kalim Kassam.)

Submarine Campaigns as Economic Warfare

Friday, July 5th, 2013

The “failed” German U-boat campaign in the Atlantic likely cost the Allies 10 times what it cost the Germans, Michel Thomas Poirier says, and the American sub campaign against the Japanese was even more successful:

Based on this rough estimate, the Japanese spent at least 42 times more on Anti-Submarine Warfare and in losses attributed to submarines than the U.S. spent on her Submarine Force. When one considers the fact that the Japanese economy was only 8.9% of the size of the U.S. economy in 1937, the submarine campaign was clearly an extraordinarily cost efficient means to employ U.S. forces against Japan.(96)

We have examined the direct, indirect and second-order effects of the U.S. submarine campaign against Japanese raw material and petroleum imports as well as the effects on four pillars of Japanese power. Fully a year before the end of the war, and before the extensive bombing of mainland Japan, the war against Japanese lines of communication resulted in decisive impact on the Japanese war economy and on the Japanese military logistical system.

We can draw several important lessons on the effectiveness of submarines attacking sea lines of communication based on our study of the two World War II historical cases. First, both these campaigns were directed against vulnerable opponents who required the use of the sea both to import raw materials and to project military forces far from the homeland. A submarine attack on seagoing logistical lines of communication would obviously not be effective against an insular, continental power. Second, both campaigns, including the “failed” German effort, incurred disproportionate costs on the side conducting Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). Third, the indirect and second order effects of these campaigns were virtually as important as the direct costs. In fact, the continuing indirect and second order effects played a key role in logistically constraining the Allies in the Atlantic after the allied defeat of the U-boat threat. Finally, in both campaigns, the effects of submarine warfare on an opponent resulted in a substantial reduction of the opponent’s strategic choice and had significant effects on his industrial policy. In the case of the Atlantic campaign, the Allies modified industrial priorities and reduced production of amphibious lift. Lack of logistical and amphibious lift resulted in constrained allied strategic choice for most of the war including a delayed ability to open a second front in France. In the case of Japan, the U.S. submarine campaign substantially reduced Japanese war production, and, ultimately, significantly reduced the Japanese ability to implement their preferred defensive strategy. As a result, the submarine campaign proved itself as an efficient way to wage war against a competitor that must supply its forces over long distances by sea.

It is interesting to contemplate to what degree the United States is vulnerable today to a campaign by a committed regional power or peer competitor against our sea lines of communications. Within the U.S. Navy today, one hears some discussion on the possible impact of submarine attacks against our battle groups, but few consider the impact a campaign against our vulnerable sealift train might have. Since America remains dependent today on sealift to project military power, an opponent might well assess this vulnerability worth exploiting.

Bad News for the Red Empire?

Thursday, July 4th, 2013

In what amounts to universal journalistic malpractice, Nick B. Steves notes, it goes criminally under-reported that the United States has not, in fact, won an actual war since 1945:

All of this lends confirmation to my suspicion that the US Military, the Red Empire, has itself been Cathedralized, i.e., brought under the reign of her once despised master the Blue Empire, and forced to implement a corporate culture that rewards ideological subservience in place of objective, demonstrable merit.

Certainly the US Military remains the most outrageously powerful fighting force in the world. But only so at increasingly costly supports, bureaucratic restraints, and political favor seeking.