OK, this is long. Steve will shake his head as I describe it as a lot like me getting ready to ask a GrokTALK! participant a question: a long run up and then the question.
I’ve justified the habit as if I’m chasing that person into a three-walled canyon so that they’d have to get by me to get out. In this case, I think it is proper to abstract more than I usually would as the set up.
And I think it is necessary as the base issue it addresses has changed a fundamental outlook on how things now work (regardless of what the conventional wisdom about it still thinks). Are you willing to change your philosophy when the data changes the ground out from under your feet?
The scary part is the question at the end. From Points and Figures (reformatted, emphasis mine):
One of the best ways to think about decision-making is by calculating the costs and opportunity costs. It helps you sort through strategy. It forces a bit of discipline into your thinking because you have to put numbers into ideas and feelings. It’s a basic piece of economics. It works if you use positive economics but doesn’t if you use normative economics. Most people don’t look at opportunity costs the correct way because they use normative economics. That’s how you get decisions not to clear brush because of global warming in California.
I listened to Marc Andreessen’s interview with the Hoover Institution. It’s worth your time. One subject they talk about is drones. Drones started out as a game. Fun to fly. Businesses have adopted them for different projects. But, as we have seen in Ukraine, drones can be a highly effective offensive weapon on the battlefield.
I think running down the rabbit hole of drones, robots, autonomous vehicles, and war is worth your time. I seriously doubt if Senator Virtue Signal (Hard lefty Tammy Duckworth) has seriously considered it. She’s worried about breastfeeding on the battlefield.
But, a war for humans gets hyper-scary when you think about those things. All of a sudden, the sci-fi movies of the 90s become real. Watch The Terminator, Minority Report, and other 90s sci-fi flicks for a taste and to lubricate your imagination. Andreessen asks the question, what does a battleship do when 1000 armed drones attack at sea?
…Imagine being in a foxhole and autonomous tanks, autonomous drones, and armed robot infantry attack you. How do you stop it when there are thousands of them? Imagine if the Nazis had that at a place like Bastogne.
More importantly, several pieces of the puzzle stop countries from attacking other countries. China is rumored to be planning an attack on Taiwan. What’s stopping them today? Amphibious landing for sure. They are difficult to pull off. But what if you did it with self-driving boats, robots, and drones? No people.
World opinion, banks, and financial markets offer some deterrence. The threat of another country retaliating is a deterrent. But, the largest deterrent and the highest opportunity cost is human life. Even butchers like Putin have a breaking point when it comes to losing human lives. Internal opinions can topple him if it gets too bad.
What happens to the costs/opportunity costs when you minimize the potential human losses on your side to almost nil?
This is why it is job number one to win the tech race on both Earth and in space. The next war is going to be fought in outer space as well as on Earth. The US cannot finish in second place when it comes to this arms race. Finishing second means losing.
I didn’t hear one question from any Senator about that when the presumptive Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testified.
Now, I have only watched snippets from the Hegseth hearing – and those were from the questioning from Democrats (and yes, from Senator Mullin taking the Democrats to task over those kinds of questions)
And here is the Scary Question:
California politicians were ignorant and thought they could defy nature. Are Washington politicians any different when it comes to defense and thinking about the future? What’s worse to lose, your home in a fire that could have been prevented or your freedom in a war that could have been prevented?
In short, have mindsets been changed to be able to handle what should be recognized that our world has changed? Sure, Ukraine vs Russia isn’t a Great Peer war – but it has shown that the tactics have changed. Like in the arena of Journalism, where the technology has turned things totally upside down and inside out to where the “large” outfits are being outclassed and outmaneuvered by “small”.
And with the changed technology, radically new tactics have proven themselves to be able to outdo those that have been de rigeur since World War II. To use another modification to “standard warfare”, think of the early days of the Ukraine war where small squads, equipped with anti-tank weapons, took out most of Russia’s armored vehicles. Missiles/rockets costing thousands took out equipment costing 10s, 100s of thousands to millions of dollars. Asymmetric warfare at its finest.
And here we are, with our Navy using missiles costing one to a few million dollars to take out drones costing a few thousands to a few hundred thousands. Bad end of the financial equation even if it is working.
Fighting today’s war with yesterday’s outlook.
Thus, war is now going through the same transformation. And if a nation doesn’t change, it will lose and the proprietor of Points and Figures, Jeffrey Carter, gets this part right. Can we change?
Capitalism, when unbound and not regulated to death, is governed by the phrase “Creative Destruction”. Things changes and those that can be disruptors in a field (or creating a new one) can be the winners. However, these disruptors can then, in turn be disrupted and put out of business by the next generation of innovators (just like we are seeing in journalism – the old dinosaurs are dying and new species are eating their lunch).
I didn’t hear one question from any Senator about that when the presumptive Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testified.
Sure, I get it. The Dems were there only to get him disqualified on the basis of character. Frankly, as Lincoln view General Grant (or FDR to Patton) – who can win and how? Even if they hate him, wouldn’t it have been better to try to disqualify Hegseth on the merits of what Trump was asking him to do? And not the usual personal destruction tactics?
In this, they disqualified themselves from being Senators.
So, are we totally screwed?