Stupid and Dangerous

Curtis LeMay, Israel, and the Iranian bomb

In Dark Sun, Richard Rhodes reports on a speech by Curtis LeMay, who commanded the the bombing of Japan's cities during World War II.  LeMay reported on an analysis of Japan's three possible defenses to this bombing.  One was fighter and aircraft defenses, but, LeMay noted, no U.S. attack had been turned back in this way during the war.  A second was destruction of the U.S. bombers at their bases in the Marianas, but this would not have worked because even one bomber with an atomic bomb would have done the work of hundreds, and because U.S. industry would quickly have replenished the supply of bombers.  The third was destruction of the U.S. factories and laboratories that were producing the bombs.  This would have worked, but Japan had no means of getting to them. 

The Israelis certainly do not want to try defending against atomic-tipped Iranian missiles.  Destroying Iranian bombers at their airfields and Iranian missiles in their silos (eventually) or on their launchers, shows more promise, but does not provide the certainty required by Israel.  This leaves destruction of the factories and laboratories producing the bombs. 

I don't care if the politicians are whores, as long as I can be a whore, too

Footnote 102 to an article on the New York election of 1891, which was the first statewide election in New York to use uniform ballots printed by the government--i.e., the first in New York to use what was intended to be a truly "secret" ballot:

As a general proposition, it seems unfair that so many--the media, consultants, pollsters, paid canvassers, etc.--feast on the campaign expenditure pie, yet it is a crime for a voter to take even the tiniest bite. . . . It is particularly unfair that office holders and candidates are allowed to solicit and accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, corporations, and political action committees, and to say with as straight a face as they can muster that the money will not influence their votes, while a citizen who openly sought cash contributions from candidates would undoubtedly be considered to be prostituting his franchise, regardless of what he said.  Law and society thus treat politicans as more moral than the average citizen.  Does this distinction comport with experience?  Recall that the premise of the [New York] Ballot Reform Law and the rationale of the Nichols decision [which involved that law] was that ballot secret would remove any incentive for bribery.  If one truly believes that technology renders a ballot secret, then the prohibition against payment to voters is unnecessary.  Retention of the current prohibition against a potential voter promising to vote in exchange for payment would remove any moral obligation that a voter might feel.  A requirement that payment to a voter be made before election day would further ensure that a candidate retained no leverage as a voter was actually casting his ballot.

From Ballot Reform and the Election of 1891 in the Summer 2011 issue of Judicial Notice, published by the Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York.

Free speech and terrorism

The limits of government power and free speech in the context of the "war on terrorism" are being tested on both coasts. 

A federal district judge in New York issued a permanent injunction this month against enforcement of section 1012(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.  That law provides as follows:

(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

   (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

   (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War.--The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

   (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

   (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

   (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

Several plaintiffs, including a journalist, activists, and those whose activities encompass both, sued to enjoin enforcement of (b)(2), saying that it infringed on their right of free speech and was unconstitutionally vague.  Specifically, they said that the law did not define "substantially supported," "directly supported," an "associated forces."  They said, essentially, that they were afraid to publish certain material because it might be construed to be, for example, "substantial support" of an "associated force."  Could an article describing the social and charitable activities of Hamas, for example, constitute "substantial support" of Hamas, and could Hamas--which after all has been designated a "terrorist organization" by the United States--be considered an "associated force."  They didn't know, and the government wasn't saying.  The stakes are high, since detention under 1012(b)(2) can last until the "end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force."  The particularauthorization referred to is the one passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  Exactly when the "hostilities" covered by that authorization will end is anybody's guess.  Dexter Filkins's excellent book on the subject is aptly titled, "The Forever War."  Furthermore, 1012 authorizes "detention without trial," so a detainee might have a long wait before ever getting a chance to prove that the whole thing was a big mistake.  Furthermore, 1012 authorizes detention "under the law of war."  Whatever the law of war is, it has not been made part of the laws of the United States. 

The government initially refused to say that the activities of the plaintiffs were not covered by 1012(b)(2).  Eventually, the government said that independent journalistic activities, without more, are not covered by 1012(b)(2).  One suspects that the government's initial reluctance to exclude plaintiffs from 1012(b)(2) was attributable in part to the government's killing in Yemen in 2011 of Anwar Awlaki, the U.S.-born Al Qaeda propagandist. 

The government has appealed the injunction against enforcement of 1012(b)(2), claiming that the injunction would imperil the government's efforts against terrorists.  From the description of the plaintiffs' activities, which include Wikileaks and Occupy London, one suspects that the simple truth is that not enough people are remotely interested in their activities for them to imperil anyone or anything. 

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, a convicted check-kiter and wretchedly incompetent movie maker named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has managed to incite riots throughout the Muslim world with "The Innocence of Muslims."  It would be difficult to imagine an individual who has provided more substantial support than he has to Al Qaeda and its associated forces in the current hostilities against the United States.  Yet, somehow, he remains, if not totally free, then at least free on probation from his latest felony conviction. 

The message of the United States to the Muslim world in response to "The Innocence of Muslims" is that we abhor the movie, but we protect free speech and cannot subject Nakoula to criminal penalties because of a movie.  If that is true, then why can't government tell the journalists, activitists, and Wikileakists that they are safe from arrest?  If it is not true, then why is Nakoula still walking the streets?

Corporations are people, too, my friend

Mitt Romney says that 47 per cent of Americans are "people who pay no income tax" and are "dependent on the government."  One assumes that far from being critical, he is expressing sympathy for people like General Electric, which is said to have paid no U.S. income tax in 2010 on $5.1 billion of U.S. income, and which has been the beneficiary of $29 billion dollars in U.S. government contracts and grants since 2000, according to USASpending.gov.  I say Romney is right.  Let's wean people like General Electric off of their government dependency and make them responsible, productive citizens again. 

Romney's military plans, part II

An article in today's Washington Post confirms that when it comes to our nuclear weapons, we are at a point in time when we either use 'em, lose 'em, or pay for 'em all over again.  Which makes the view that we should use 'em the only economically sensible one to hold.

Romney's military plans

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced today that if he is elected, the U.S. military will kill at least four per cent of the country's enemies every year.  "I've pledged to spend at least four per cent of our gross domestic product on the military," he said.  "But keep in mind that I come from the private sector, where we give our employees all the resources they need, then judge them by what they produce.  I will expect the U.S. military to produce death and destruction commensurate with the resources I will be giving them." 

The U.S. military spent $711 billion in 2011, according to SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.  The next 14 countries combined spent $711.1 billion, according to SIPRI.  "If we spend as much as China, Russia, the U.K., France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and Turkey, combined, we should expect some bang for our buck," Romney said. 

Under questioning, Romney did concede that in head to head competition, the U.S. military has only two significant competitors among the top 15 spenders.  "Some of these countries," he muttered, "you wonder why they pay for a military at all.  How many people did Brazil kill last year?  Or Saudi Arabia?  If they tried firing their military, they might find they enjoy it, like I do.

"The Commies," he said, referring to Russia and China, "they're doing better than the capitalists when it comes to military-economic efficiency.  Whenever the Russians fall below their kill quota, they just take a field trip to Chechnya.  And the Chinese always have Tibet to fall back on." 

Romney is known to be scrutinizing spread sheets analyzing the efficiency of the various units of the armed forces.  He is particularly skeptical of the Navy.  "They just sail around, sail around, but what do they really accomplish?  We're giving serious thought to spinning them off.  Australia's an island.  And they only spend 1.8 per cent of their GDP on their military.  We think they're an attractive merger prospect for our Navy." 

The infantry also draw his attention.  "Sure, they're brave," he says, "but look at their productivity figures.  Do you have any idea how many bullets they take to kill just one person?"  Romney, of course, has an idea.  "50,000 rounds to kill one enemy," he says.  "That's about $23,000 per kill, just for ammunition.  And the personnel costs in the infantry are sky-high."

"Sure, I'm a job creator," he adds, quickly.  "But I enjoy firing people, too."  Romney plans to keep the snipers, though, who average a kill for every 1.3 rounds. 

Romney is known to take a keen interest in U.S. nuclear weapons.  "George Bush gave weapons of mass destruction a bad name," Romney said.  "But let's look at this from a cost-benefit point of view.  The costs of the Manhattan project have been fully amortized.  We have expensed the cost of weapons and maintenance as we've gone along.  Why, these bombs are, from a cash flow point of view, practically free!' 

"Furthermore," he says, "you have to look at the opportunity costs of not using these weapons.  Radioactive materials get less radioactive every year.  Tritium triggers go bad.  The high explosive lenses get less and less reliable.  Pretty soon we'll have all of these bad assets sitting on our balance sheet, and then what will we be?  Lehman Brothers."

"Do you see supermarkets letting produce sit on their shelves until they go bad?  No.  Those people are in the private sector, and they know how to make the most of a valuable but wasting asset.  You have to do what it takes to move it.  And that's what I'll do if I'm elected president." 

"Let me tell you what we can expect from this policy," Romney said.  "As you know, Russia is our biggest foe.  The Russian population right now is about 140 million. Four per cent of that is 5.6 million people.  That's our target number per year.  With five fully amortized, fully depreciated one-megaton bombs we could take out Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhy Novgorod, Samara, and Omsk, and make our target." 

"If we address our military problems with modern, quantitative management protocols, we can achieve increased productivity," he said.  "Just like Robert McNamara."

When asked about the morality of using nuclear weapons, Romney scoffed.  "Look, I'm bringing a private sector attitude to the presidency," he said.  "We do what it takes."  "Besides," he added, "every soul we kill will be posthumously baptised by the Mormon Church.  So they will all end  up in heaven. It's a win-win situation."

Jobs, jobs, jobs: A losing issue for Obama

If the issue in the 2012 election is jobs, Obama loses.  That is one of the lessons of "This Time is Different," by Reinhart and Rogoff, a study of 800 years of financial crises.  They report that, on average, after a banking crisis, the unemployment rate rises for 4.8 years; the average increase in the umnemployment rate is seven percentage points.  This might sound something like good news for Obama, if one dated the banking crisis from, say, June of 2007, when Bear Stearns started reporting bad news, one would expect the unemployment rate to start dropping around March of 2012, just in time for the election campaign.  But there are some flies in that ointment.  One is that the 4.8 years is an average, whereas the current crisis is much worse than average.  The current crisis is termed, in Reinhart and Rogoff and elsewhere, the "Second Great Contraction."  The First Great Contraction was the Great Depression.  The second fly is that the unemployment figures for the First Great Contraction offer little solace.  The good news is that unemployment increased for only four years following the 1929 crash.  The bad news is that at the end of those four years, the unemployment rate had risen by more than 20 percentage points.  (p. 228-29 of Reinhart & Rogoff, Princeton Univ. paperback 2009.  The table on p. 229 states the increase as more than 20 "percent," but the text at 228 and the context make clear that the increase is in percentage points. ) 

The title of "This Time is Different" is intended to be ironic.  The actors in the runup to each financial crisis think that this time is different--that the same factors that cause past crises will not cause a crisis this time.   Each time, the actors are wrong. 

The same can be said for the events following each crisis.  Each time, the actors think that they are doing enough of the right kind of things to ameliorate the effects of the crisis.  But they are not doing the rights things, or at least not enough of the right things.

This time is not different.  The unemployment rate will not improve substantially, if at all, before the election.  If the issue is jobs, jobs, jobs, Obama loses.

Jeffress's Choice

"Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person, or one who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?"  That question was posed  at the Values Voters Conference by Pastor Robert Jeffress, who said one of his purposes was to draw sharp contrasts.  Jeffress's choice, by the way, is that he does not want a "good, moral person."  He wants the other one. 

Trash the currency: Exhibit A

Floyd Norris points out (again) that a country that is deep enough in debt essentially has its creditors by the throat.  He characterizes Greece's position vis a vis Germany and the rest of its European creditors as follows:

“I’m small. I’ve suffered. You can afford to rescue me. If you don’t, I can create chaos for all of you.”

How could Greece create chaos?  By going off the euro and converting its (and its citizens") euros to drachmas.   Resumption of a separate currency would allow Greece to devalue that currency (how many drachmas would *you* take right now for a euro?) and to pay off some of its debts in the devalued currency.  (The rest of its debts it defaults on.) 

The United States, of course, has its own currency.  What must China be thinking right now?

Trash the currency

If for some reason, you owe a guy a Chevy, you want to get the cheapest Chevy you can to pay him back.  The US government owes a bunch of people (China, Japan, US banks) a whole bunch of dollars.  By a remarkable coincidence, the US government can influence the value of dollars.  So, if the government does not want to cut spending (which it does not), and does not want to raise taxes (which it does not), the only way it can pay off its debts is to make dollars cheaper.  So look for inflation in our future.