Acknowledging Our Pertinent History

It is a truism that the window breakers and car-fire setters are ignorant of history. Too many of us are. The Right, having allowed the Left to take academia in full-frontal assault in the 1960s, its ramparts undefended by adults who ought to have known better, bears more than a bit of blame for this.

Nonetheless, the history that adults find it tiring that the Left refuses to grasp (“Progressive” policies that have been tried in every geography, culture and time always degrade, rather than improve, human lives) is only half, and not the most important half, of the history pertinent at this juncture.

The history with which all of us, but particularly the Left, need to become reacquainted is the history of Western resistance to totalitarianism.

The West, the most physically, morally and economically powerful civilization in the history of the known universe got that way through violent resistance to and destruction of totalitarianism.

Greece defeated Persia. The Roman Republic defeated Carthage. In more modern times, the West that descended from these civilizations has fought for the same reasons those ancestors fought: Freedom, Liberty, the Rule of Law and Self-Government.

We have fought totalitarians within our own civilization as hot wars (Britain v. Napoleonic France, America v. Britain (twice), the Allies v. Germany (twice), the Allies v. Japan, and many others). As we have grown so powerful that hot wars can kill us all we have fought against totalitarianism outside our civilization as Cold Wars.

We have won these wars. All of them. For thousands of years.

The Left today seems to forget this. They seem not to know that when it comes down to all the marbles, to liberty for ourselves and our posterity, our patience evaporates. Brexit and Trump both are signs that our patience is close to doing so now, signs that, like a rattler’s rattle, should not be ignored.

Patiently finding footpaths around totalitarians blocking our paths in ridiculously infantile vagina costumes, patiently waiting in cars as our roads to work and the hospital are blocked, patiently watching on our TV screens as Leftist rioters throw rocks, break windows and burn our schools, and riot against the enforcement of duly-passed immigration laws, with the goal of destroying Freedom, Liberty, the Rule of Law and Self-Government only will last for so long.

Churchill famously said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” And we Americans have tried just about “everything else” to stop the totalitarianism under which the Left violently is demanding to enslave us.

Just about.

The aftermath of the 2016 election is the most violent in our history, absent the Civil War. Who won that? Those fighting for human liberty.

If the Left keeps this up, if anarchy and rising resistance to the Rule of Law – to Western Civilization itself – continue, it is erroneous to think that those of us who care about the future enough to populate it will not lose our patience.

The Left can continue to riot, burn and break, demanding to enslave us. The Left can and, I’m sure, will become more and more violent.

Not arresting rioters for felony rioting and imprisoning them for the maximum allowable terms is an ill-advised rejection of the Rule of Law on the part of the adults, just as it was in the 1960s when the same cohort assaulted our schools.

We are under the Rule of Law only if it is enforced.

The Left, however, should google the history of Western liberty. There are bumps in the road, yes, but liberty always wins.

Why?

Because we who demand liberty stand, as we have stood for thousands of years, ready to kill Liberty’s enemies in whatever numbers we deem necessary to ensure her primacy.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Immorality of Not Using Our Most Productive Weapons in War

The purpose of war is to alter the behavior of an opponent. The fewer lives lost in doing so the better. One not only should strive to lose as few of one’s own lives as possible, one should strive to kill as few of the enemy as necessary to achieve the goal of altering his behavior, and to ensure a post-war peace. The latter may require killing many more of the enemy than the former, which was why Eisenhower pursued his “Broad Front” strategy rather than just race to Berlin as Patton wanted. Such a “Broad Front” would have been a far better strategy in reducing Iraq than the race to Baghdad, and for the same reasons.

Nuclear weapons – far and away – are the most productive of weapons. Contrary to popular feeling and conventional wisdom – and to Dr. Strangelovian fantasies – these weapons save lives. They always have and always will.

In 1945, President Truman could have accepted the Navy’s estimate of Japanese dead in an invasion (9M), or the Army’s (5M), added that to the estimate of American KIA (1M), and pulled the trigger on an invasion estimated by men who had been fighting this enemy for 3-1/2 years that would cost between 6M and 10M human lives, and last until 1949, the then-current planning estimate.

Instead, Truman dropped two of what would today be considered tactical nukes (15-21KT), and killed an estimated 400,000 Japanese (the immediate estimate + estimated radiation victims over the next four months), and zero (0) Americans. (Full disclosure: my dad fought in the Pacific Theater of WW2.)

The only thing that matters in war is the size of the bang; not what made it. Nuclear weapons are productive; conventional weapons are not. Rather than go with my opinion on the morality of using these weapons, the following is from Quartered Safe Out Here, an excellent battlefield memoir of the China-Burma-India theater of WW2 by a British Private Soldier who became best-selling author, George MacDonald Fraser (of the Flashman series of historical novels).

Fraser published his memoir in 1992, decades removed from the field of battle. In the final chapter he described his feelings regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, introducing the topic via a 1990s bar discussion with one his own age who had not fought in the war. As Fraser’s words are the best I have found regarding using these weapons by the men who fought that enemy and who may have died in their absence, I quote him at length.

The dropping of the bombs was a hideous thing, and I do not wonder that some of those who bore a part in it have been haunted by it all their lives. If it was not barbaric, the word has no meaning. …

And so it was not only their lives, as I pointed out to my antibomb disputant. To reduce it to a selfish, personal level… if the bombs had been withheld, and the war had continued on conventional lines, then even if I’d failed my [promotion] board and gone with the battalion into Malaya, the odds that I’d have survived: 4 to 1 actuarially speaking, on the [squad’s] Burma fatalities. But I might have been that one, in which case my three children and six grandchildren would never have been born. And that, I’m afraid, is where all discussion of pros and cons evaporates and becomes meaningless, because for those nine lives I would pull the plug on the whole Japanese nation and never even blink. And so, I dare suggest, would you. And if you wouldn’t, you may be nearer to the divine than I am but you sure as hell aren’t fit to be parents or grandparents.

Since 1945, and for the first time in history, a nation has rejected the use of its most productive weaponry to defend itself and its citizens. This is among the larger moral failures ever undertaken by a Great Power.

Millions have died – unnecessarily – because of the refusal of American presidents to use America’s most productive weapons; their willingness, instead, to trade the lives of their citizens – and of their enemies – for the ego of leaders who want to be seen as strong war presidents, but who refuse to destroy our enemies and win our wars. (A nation’s enemy is the opposing nation. Armies are just policy tools. Killing an army does not win a war: I give you Iraq today.)

Americans killed over 2M Koreans and 54K Americans in that “limited war.” Had America chosen a tactical nuke strike on Pyongyang in 1950, would two-plus million lives have been destroyed? No.

Americans killed about 2M Vietnamese and 58K Americans in that “limited war.” Had America chosen a tactical nuke strike on Hanoi in 1964 (the same time our government was lying to us about the Tonkin Gulf), would two-plus million lives have been destroyed? No.

In the decades since Korea and Vietnam, how many tax dollars from how many nations have been spent dealing with the military and civil repercussions from not having won those wars? How much higher would be regional living standards (and America’s) had trillions not been spent containing those we refused to defeat? That, too, is a cost of not using our most advanced weaponry, to say nothing of the societal and cultural split in America that will long-outlive those who fought in it.

North Koreans are eating grass and starving to death because America refused to use nukes and win the war.

Nor did it ensure a more just and prosperous peace. Who was freer, wealthier, better-educated and a better ally 20 years later? Japan in 1965… or Pyongyang in 1973, or Hanoi in 1995? Does anyone believe Afghanistan or Iraq will be free economic, political and military allies in 2040, 20 years after we leave?

Weapons don’t win wars. Willpower wins wars.

A president who does not want to win a war he fights (and this applies both to Bush43 and Obama, just as it applied to both Truman in Korea and LBJ in Vietnam), has no business sending men to kill and to die. A president choosing to have the men he commands killed mercilessly on a battlefield by an enemy he can annihilate with no Americans killed, wounded or maimed, has no business leading a nation.

Not to choose the most productive weapons is to choose the immorality of sending men to die when alternatives exist.

 

Let’s look at a specific, current example:

Perhaps as many as 40,000 Yazidi took refuge on Sinjar Mountain, Ninawa, Iraq, surrounded by ISIS. How many did ISIS slaughter? No one knows, but hundreds a day were reported for a time. Women, children, men, shot in the head. Throats slit.

Sinjar Mountain rises 1,480 meters above the surrounding plains, plains in which ISIS encamped for days, first waiting, and then slaughtering thousands of human beings.

What did America do? Almost nothing of consequence to ISIS, or of value to the Yazidi:

“Central Command says the nine airstrikes conducted so far had destroyed or damaged four armored personnel carriers, seven armed vehicles, two Humvees and an armored vehicle.”

We “damaged or destroyed” 14 vehicles. Nine airstrikes. 9.

It would be embarrassing if it weren’t so tragic.

What would the moral alternative have been?

The closest towns or villages to Sinjar Mountain are ten kilometers away. The bottom of the mountain on which the Yazidi sheltered is over 2km away horizontally at its nearest distance from the village of Kursi and the relatively flat areas at the top of the mountain on which the Yazidi were sheltering.

One of American’s current tactical nuclear weapons, the W80, has an adjustable yield as low at 5KT, less than one third that of the Hiroshima weapon (15.2KT).

What is the lethal blast radius for a 5KT warhead detonated at the optimum altitude for a soft target such as the ISIS encampments? We look here and discover the following:

  • Radius for 3rddegree burns: 1.3 kilometers
  • Air blast radius (widespread destruction): 1.3 kilometers
  • Air blast radius (near-total fatalities): 476 meters
  • Fireball radius: 40-80 meters.

Striking an enemy encamped 2 km away, 1400 meters lower and behind the shielding mountain shoulder, with a weapon having a blast radius of 500-1300 meters, would have annihilated the enemy and not harmed the Yazidi.  And it need not have been an airburst. A surface burst would reduce each of these distances, further protecting the Yazidi.

A tactical strike by an available weapon, centered on the ISIS encampments at the bottom of the mountain, would have done three things:

  1. Annihilated the ISIS encampment
  2. Saved the Yazidi
  3. Made a statement regarding serious of purpose that cannot be made any other way.

It is time, past time, to get serious. To stop getting our guys killed. To stop pretending their people are more important than ours.  To stop putting a barbaric and savage society above the lives of our men & women – and the children they will never have, at an unknowable cost in human capital.

Posted in Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Strengthening our Conventional Military



This is an interesting column on conventional military structure and results. It is at best tangential to the discussion that must take place.

There’s a larger problem, and that is a nation for the first time in history choosing the sacrifice of its soldiers over the use of its most productive weapons. Ike announced his policy of “Massive Retaliation” and kept us out of war his entire time in office. An acquaintance at the National War College states bluntly that MR is the only reason Parisians don’t speak Russian today.

Re-adopting MR will reduce our defense budgets, rid us of nation building nonsense, get the military industrial complex and its neocon supporters out of the way (no need for multi billion dollar new toys), and once we show seriousness – by using 1-2 tactical nukes on Isis – reduce to near-zero the need to use them again.

Too many fail to grasp that the estimated killed in an invasion of Japan was 1M Americans and 9M (USN est) or 5M (Army) Japanese. Only about 400K died and no Americans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 6-10M lives. Had we nuked Pyongyang in 1950, or Hanoi in 1963, we’d not have killed 2M Koreans, 2M Vietnamese or 100K Americans.

Constant conventional war, both in preparation (budgets & toys) and execution (iron bombs, bullets, avgas, lives) is far more expensive than the -far- more productive alternative.

The continued reliance on conventional warfare is the most immoral decision American leaders make – and they’ve been making it since 1950.

There is no excuse for it. It must stop.

Posted in Domestic, Politics, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Capitalist’s Guide to Warfare

Posted in Domestic, Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

American Inflection Point

One had hoped that winning at the ballot box would be all that was required to save Western Civilization. It increasingly is looking as though that was only the end of the beginning.

230 years of peaceful transition had to end one day. This is why I post supporting secession: These people cannot – will not – refuse to be – be reasoned with. Logic, facts and history can find no purchase.

From this vantage point the street is looking worse than the summer of ’68. And it’s only the beginning of February. We seem to be at the opening stages of a war. As with radical Islam, only our enemies are fighting it.

The ’60s were uncoordinated points of violence. The coordination, leadership & communication within the totalitarian resistance to law & order all are in place today.

The Left no longer is a reasonable difference of opinion. It is composed of communist ideologues, enemies of liberty, freedom and the Rule of Law, and must be treated – and fought – accordingly.

Nor is it the “radical” Left anymore: this is the mainstream of the Democrat Party and the national media.

This is a totalitarian Left violently pursuing economic and material damage to my country, subverting our laws & people, attacking and beating Americans, and demanding the importation of a violent alien culture to increase their violence and intimidation.

To the Democrat mainstream, radical Islam is a pawn to be played violently against freedom, human rights, self-government and individual liberty. To be played against Western Civilization itself.

Millions of us took an oath to prevent this. It is fantasy that our oath will not be acted on.

Once totalitarianism has been achieved, Islam will be violently discarded by the Left as it, too, is a competing ideology; the Left are the most accomplished mass-murderers in history, having murdered hundreds of millions of their own countrymen just in the last century to further their goal. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

We may be and probably are at an inflection point: begin removing the totalitarian disease with the level of violence required to effect a return to law, or become Europe, already overrun with totalitarian thought in their parliaments & streets, and with the alien disease across their lands, foolishly allowing it to attack without response their most irreplaceable and important resources: their women & children.

Make no mistake: Europe is on its way to becoming S Asia; there is almost nothing they can do, and probably nothing they have the will to do, to stop it. The economic catastrophe that will cause, destroying hundreds of billions of dollars of annual world trade and tens of millions of jobs, will make the Great Depression look like a minor recession.

That this is being ignored by the leaders of the Great Powers astounds.

Had the person beaten by the mob into unconsciousness in the street, or the person hit & knocked out by the mob at the Portland airport been with me – or any of 14.5 million others who carry to protect against violence – the attacker/s would have been shot. It is WHY we carry. Escalation from that point, a point their leaders seem to be hoping and planning for, will be bad for all but, in the long run, worse for us as the increase in security will further their goal of totalitarianism. THEY KNOW THIS.

But they have left us no alternative. Violence not responded to begets a police state.

Someone needs to begin removing the leaders of this movement covertly. They will not stop nor police themselves.

The future of American liberty depends on it.

Posted in Baby Boomers, Domestic, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment