XBradTC

In the aftermath of the slaughterhouse that was World War I, one of the major causes of the war was seen by contemporary powers as the massive naval arms race before the war, particularly between Great Britain and the Kaiser’s Germany. You have to remember, battleships were the nuclear weapons of their day, capable of astonishing destruction, and a huge investment of national resources. Modern nuclear strategists know of the “use ‘em or lose ‘em” conundrum that surrounds the question of using nuclear weapons. Much the same issue faced naval powers with regards to battleships.

In the immediate aftermath of World War I, therefore, not a few people were quite alarmed at the fact that a new naval arms race was already underway. The US had passed a law calling for a massive increase in our own battlefleet. Great Britain, in spite of the appalling losses, both in lives and treasure she had lost in the Great War, was determined to maintain at least parity, if not superiority of the naval power that enabled Rule Britannia. Japan, a latecomer to the industrial revolution, nonetheless was economically growing at an astonishing rate, and saw itself as the rightful hegemon of the western Pacific, a role that obviously called for a world class navy, one they were quite busy building.

For reasons mostly of domestic politics, the Harding administration proposed a conference to limit the building of capital ships such as battleships, battlecruisers, and aircraft carriers.  The Washington Naval Conference was the first major arms control summit ever. And of course, it was a huge diplomatic effort. And where diplomacy goes, so goes espionage.

Do we need to review the rest of the history of compromised communications during World War II such as Enigma and the Fleet Radio Unit Pacific? How about the XX Committee? Suffice to say that the penetration of enemy communications during the war was an astonishing triumph of Allied intelligence operations, and materially affected the course of the war.

Hillary Clinton’s emails have already been compromised by a private hacker known as Guccifer. It simply must be assumed that the entirety of her email was also compromised by other foreign powers.

We’re hardly the only one to show concern about Hillary Clinton’s compromised communications.

Further, once one end of communications security is breached, it make it far easier to breach the other end, and then spread through the network. The entire point of having secure government networks is to, well, keep them secure. While the NSA is currently busy monitoring the emails and cellphone communications of vast swaths of our citizenry, it should be scrambling to determine if, and how far, the integrity of our nation’s networks have been breached.

And while no one expected much in the way of competence from anyone in the Obama administration in terms of foreign policy and negotiations, how much of the brazen contempt our opponents and adversaries have shown us is because they already know what the US response will be?

Many Democrats (and Hillary’s water carriers in the press) will be quick to defend her, claiming the political attacks are simply an attempt to derail her presumptive run for the presidency. But shouldn’t actions by a political figure that have negative national security implication invite political attack, and carry political consequences? Particularly since the only plausible explanation for Mrs. Clinton’s use of her unusual email system was to hide from discovery by the public and legitimate government oversight information that might be used against her politically.

Eighteen years ago, Buffy the Vampire Slayer aired for the first time on The WB in a two-part debut. “Welcome to the Hellmouth” introduced viewers to Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar), a likable, popular 16-year-old who just happened to have a destiny that included saving the world from the undead; while also introducing Buffy to Sunnydale, a small, run-of-the-mill California town that just happened to sit on a Hellmouth—a portal of mystical energy that attracts demons, vampires, and other boogeymen.

via At 18, Buffy the Vampire Slayer Is Still Revolutionary — The Atlantic.

Happy Birthday to BtVS, one of my favorite series ever.
The article in the Atlantic doesn’t specifically address it, but the show is an excellent portrayal of the burdens of duty. Beyond those burdens imposed on her by fate, Buffy also freely, if reluctantly, often assumes duties that those outside might consider optional, but which she sees as central to her vision of herself as a decent person.

It’s become something of a tradition in the last decade or so that each squadron of an air wing produces a highlight reel of video from its last cruise. The widespread introduction of GoPro cameras, video editing software, and high quality HUD tapes have made for ever increasing quality cruise videos. VFA-27, The Royal Maces, fly the F/A-18E Hornet as part of Air Wing Five, and are permanently forward deployed to Japan, and operate from the USS George Washington. And they’ve got a nice teaser trailer for their next cruise video.

H/T: FA.

Ever since the Islamic State swept in to fill the void left by President Obama’s withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, the debate over how to respond to this new threat has centered on two false and overly simplistic choices: Are airstrikes alone enough to do the job, or will it take a major commitment of U.S. “boots on the ground”?

At one extreme, the president complained last month that his critics would have him put “tens of thousands” of U.S. troops back into Iraq. Yet no serious proponent of using U.S. ground forces to counter the Islamic State has suggested that any such response should demand that many combatants. On the other side of the debate, no serious advocate of an air-centric alternative has suggested that U.S. airpower can suffice unaided by a ground presence. What remains unexplored in earnest in this regard is the appropriate mix of air and land involvement to leverage our strongest comparative advantages from the air without risking a return of our troops to high-intensity close combat on the ground.

via The U.S. is squandering its airpower – The Washington Post.

Ideally, airpower and landpower are synergistic. In practice, tis not always so.

The greatest problem tactical airpower has traditionally faced is targeting. Simply flying over the enemy’s land, and struggling to identify worthwhile targets is wasteful. The enemy, in this case ISIS, uses dispersal, camouflage and deception to hide from the eye in the sky. The rather fleeting nature of tactical airpower also means that the enemy can mass and disperse almost at will. If the sky is clear of our planes, he’s free to maneuver. If our jets are overhead, a momentary dispersal renders him mostly safe.

Landpower, however, had the ability to uncover worthy targets, and force the enemy to mass, less he be destroyed in detail. Unfortunately, landpower often lacks the ability to mass effective fires quickly on fleeting targets of opportunity.

Of course, an additional burden on the current air campaign is the Rules of Engagement. While they’re not public information, one has the sneaking suspicion they are as constrictive, or more so, as other campaigns the US has recently fought. But while minimizing the possibility of any neutral casualties, to the point of risking friendly lives, makes sense in a counterinsurgency campaign, conducted by the US, where the goodwill of the local population is critical, it certainly makes less sense in the campaign against ISIS. That doesn’t mean we should kill willy nilly, and damn the body count. But it does mean that we should err on the side of killing the enemy, and not so tie ourselves in knots of red tape that we’re simply doing no good at great expense.

If you’re going to fight the war, fight the damn war.